Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27935993›Full record

ArticlePloS one2016

Development of a Search Strategy for an Evidence Based Retrieval Service.

Gah Juan Ho, Su May Liew, Chirk Jenn Ng, Ranita Hisham Shunmugam, Paul Glasziou

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 10 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 10 pooled it
–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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Interventions on Barriers to the Participation of Adolescents in Physical Activity: A Systematic Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Search results outliers among MEDLINE platforms.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2019
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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.

Gah Juan HoDepartment of Primary Care Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Su May LiewDepartment of Primary Care Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Chirk Jenn NgDepartment of Primary Care Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Ranita Hisham ShunmugamDepartment of Primary Care Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Paul GlasziouFaculty of Health Sciences and Medicine, Bond University, Queensland, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPhysicians are often encouraged to locate answers for their clinical queries via an evidence-based literature search approach. The methods used are often not clearly specified. Inappropriate search strategies, time constraint and contradictory information complicate evidence retrieval.

aimsOur study aimed to develop a search strategy to answer clinical queries among physicians in a primary care setting.

methodsSix clinical questions of different medical conditions seen in primary care were formulated. A series of experimental searches to answer each question was conducted on 3 commonly advocated medical databases. We compared search results from a PICO (patients, intervention, comparison, outcome) framework for questions using different combinations of PICO elements. We also compared outcomes from doing searches using text words, Medical Subject Headings (MeSH), or a combination of both. All searches were documented using screenshots and saved search strategies.

resultsAnswers to all 6 questions using the PICO framework were found. A higher number of systematic reviews were obtained using a 2 PICO element search compared to a 4 element search. A more optimal choice of search is a combination of both text words and MeSH terms. Despite searching using the Systematic Review filter, many non-systematic reviews or narrative reviews were found in PubMed. There was poor overlap between outcomes of searches using different databases. The duration of search and screening for the 6 questions ranged from 1 to 4 hours.

conclusionThis strategy has been shown to be feasible and can provide evidence to doctors' clinical questions. It has the potential to be incorporated into an interventional study to determine the impact of an online evidence retrieval system.

Indexed as

PhysiciansComputer SystemsDatabases, BibliographicEvidence-Based MedicineHumansInformation Storage and RetrievalMedical InformaticsMedical Subject HeadingsOnline SystemsPatient CarePubMedReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID27935993
PMCPMC5147858

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.