Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26807051›Full record

ArticleJournal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA2016

Limits of search filter development.

Nancy L Wilczynski, Cynthia Lokker, Kathleen Ann McKibbon, Nicholas Hobson, R Brian Haynes

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Nancy L Wilczynski
Cynthia Lokker
Kathleen Ann McKibbon
Nicholas Hobson
R Brian Haynes

Funding

Canadian Institutes of Health Research 230790
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe research attempted to develop search filters for biomedical literature databases that improve retrieval of studies of clinical relevance for the nursing and rehabilitation professions.

methodsDiagnostic testing framework compared machine-culled and practitioner-nominated search terms with a hand-tagged clinical literature database.

resultsWe were unable to: (1) develop filters for nursing, likely because of the overlapping and expanding scope of practice for nurses in comparison with medical professionals, or (2) develop filters for rehabilitation, because of its broad scope and the profession's multifaceted understanding of "health and ability."

conclusionsWe found limitations on search filter development for these health professions: nursing and rehabilitation.

Indexed as

Terminology as TopicBiomedical ResearchDatabases, BibliographicInformation Storage and RetrievalLibraries, MedicalResearch ReportSearch EngineSensitivity and SpecificityDatabases, BibliographicInformation Storage and RetrievalNursingOccupational TherapyPhysical Therapy SpecialtySearch EngineTerminology as Topic

Identifiers

PMID26807051
PMCPMC4722641

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.