ArticleJournal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA2021
Search methods for prognostic factor systematic reviews: a methodologic investigation.
Article in Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 3 of them syntheses 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Normal polysomnography parameters in healthy children: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2026Pooled it
- Cardiopulmonary Exercise Testing for Prognostic Assessment of Clinical Outcomes in COPD: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2026Pooled it
- Computed Tomography Imaging Measurements as a Surrogate for Clinical Outcomes After Surgical Management of Acute Type A Aortic Dissection: A Systematic Review.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2024Pooled it
- Molecular biomarkers for predicting complete response to preoperative chemoradiation in people with locally advanced rectal cancer.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024Article
- Long-Term Survivorship of Cervical Spine Procedures; A Survivorship Meta-Analysis and Meta-Regression.Global spine journal · 2023Article
- Determinants of Non-Adherence to Exercise or Physical Activity in People with Metabolic Syndrome: A Mixed Methods Review.Patient preference and adherence · 2023Review
- Development and evaluation of a search filter to identify prognostic factor studies in Ovid MEDLINE.BMC medical research methodology · 2022Article
- Literature searching methods or guidance and their application to public health topics: A narrative review.Health information and libraries journal · 2022Review
- A Systematic Review of the Prospective Relationship between Child Maltreatment and Chronic Pain.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- A Systematic Review of the Prospective Relationship Between Bullying Victimization and Pain.Journal of pain research · 2021Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study retroactively investigated the search used in a 2019 review by Hayden et al., one of the first systematic reviews of prognostic factors that was published in the Cochrane Library. The review was designed to address recognized weaknesses in reviews of prognosis by using multiple supplementary search methods in addition to traditional electronic database searching.
methodsThe authors used four approaches to comprehensively assess aspects of systematic review literature searching for prognostic factor studies: (1) comparison of search recall of broad versus focused electronic search strategies, (2) linking of search methods of origin for eligible studies, (3) analysis of impact of supplementary search methods on meta-analysis conclusions, and (4) analysis of prognosis filter performance.
resultsThe review's focused electronic search strategy resulted in a 91% reduction in recall, compared to a broader version. Had the team relied on the focused search strategy without using supplementary search methods, they would have missed 23 of 58 eligible studies that were indexed in MEDLINE; additionally, the number of included studies in 2 of the review's primary outcome meta-analyses would have changed. Using a broader strategy without supplementary searches would still have missed 5 studies. The prognosis filter used in the review demonstrated the highest sensitivity of any of the filters tested.
conclusionsOur study results support recommendations for supplementary search methods made by prominent systematic review methodologists. Leaving out any supplemental search methods would have resulted in missed studies, and these omissions would not have been prevented by using a broader search strategy or any of the other prognosis filters tested.
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.