ArticleGerman medical science : GMS e-journal2016
Evidence mapping for decision making: feasibility versus accuracy - when to abandon high sensitivity in electronic searches.
Article in German medical science : GMS e-journal, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Dental patient reported outcome and oral health-related quality of life measures: protocol for a systematic evidence map of reviews.BDJ open · 2021Article
- Defining the process to literature searching in systematic reviews: a literature review of guidance and supporting studies.BMC medical research methodology · 2018Review
- Evidence mapping based on systematic reviews of therapeutic interventions for gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST).BMC medical research methodology · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMapping the evidence is a relatively new methodological approach and may be helpful for the development of research questions and decisions about their relevance and priority. However, the amount of data available today leads to challenges for scientists sometimes being confronted with literature searches retrieving over 30,000 results for screening.
objectivesWe conducted an evidence mapping of the topic "diabetes and driving" to investigate its suitability for an evidence-based national clinical guideline. In addition, we compared a highly sensitive search with a highly specific one.
methodsBased on a systematic review, our database searches were limited to publications from 2002 to present in English and German language.
resultsDue to the strongly focused topic and the limits, our sensitive search identified a manageable number of references including sufficient evidence to answer our research question. Using the specific search strategy, we achieved a reduction of citations by 25%, concurrently identifying 88% of relevant references.
conclusionsEvidence mapping with the intention of gaining an overview of a research field does not require high level accuracy in contrary to systematic reviews. Keeping this distinction in mind, a mass of extraneous information will be avoided by using specific instead of highly sensitive search strategies.
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.