ArticleJournal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA2016
Effectiveness of adverse effects search filters: drugs versus medical devices.
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 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- The effects of probiotics supplementation on Helicobacter pylori standard treatment: an umbrella review of systematic reviews with meta-analyses.Scientific reports · 2024Pooled it
- The development of search filters for adverse effects of medical devices in medline and embase.Health information and libraries journal · 2019Article
- The development of search filters for adverse effects of surgical interventions in medline and Embase.Health information and libraries journal · 2018Review
- The feasibility of a search filter for the adverse effects of nondrug interventions in MEDLINE and Embase.Research synthesis methods · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe study tested the performance of adverse effects search filters when searching for safety information on medical devices, procedures, and diagnostic tests in MEDLINE and Embase.
methodsThe sensitivity of 3 filters was determined using a sample of 631 references from 131 rapid reviews related to the safety of health technologies. The references were divided into 2 sets by type of intervention: drugs and nondrug health technologies. Keyword and indexing analysis were performed on references from the nondrug testing set that 1 or more of the filters did not retrieve.
resultsFor all 3 filters, sensitivity was lower for nondrug health technologies (ranging from 53%-87%) than for drugs (88%-93%) in both databases. When tested on the nondrug health technologies set, sensitivity was lower in Embase (ranging from 53%-81%) than in MEDLINE (67%-87%) for all filters. Of the nondrug records that 1 or more of the filters missed, 39% of the missed MEDLINE records and 18% of the missed Embase records did not contain any indexing terms related to adverse events. Analyzing the titles and abstracts of nondrug records that were missed by any 1 filter, the most commonly used keywords related to adverse effects were: risk, complications, mortality, contamination, hemorrhage, and failure.
conclusionsIn this study, adverse effects filters were less effective at finding information about the safety of medical devices, procedures, and tests compared to information about the safety of drugs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.