Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33484123›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2021

Optimizing a literature surveillance strategy to retrieve sound overall prognosis and risk assessment model papers.

Patricia L Kavanagh, Francine Frater, Tamara Navarro, Peter LaVita, Rick Parrish, Alfonso Iorio

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 26% of its field
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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. How to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of prognostic model studies.Clinical microbiology and infection : the official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases · 2023
    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

6 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Patricia L KavanaghDynaMed, EBSCO Health, Ipswich, Massachusetts, USA.
Francine FraterDynaMed, EBSCO Health, Ipswich, Massachusetts, USA.
Tamara NavarroDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Peter LaVitaDynaMed, EBSCO Health, Ipswich, Massachusetts, USA.
Rick ParrishDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Alfonso IorioDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
EBSCO Industries (United States) · USMcMaster University · CABoston Medical Center · USImpact · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveOur aim was to develop an efficient search strategy for prognostic studies and clinical prediction guides (CPGs), optimally balancing sensitivity and precision while independent of MeSH terms, as relying on them may miss the most current literature. MATERIALS AND

methodsWe combined 2 Hedges-based search strategies, modified to remove MeSH terms for overall prognostic studies and CPGs, and ran the search on 269 journals. We read abstracts from a random subset of retrieved references until ≥ 20 per journal were reviewed and classified them as positive when fulfilling standardized quality criteria, thereby assembling a standard dataset used to calibrate the search strategy. We determined performance characteristics of our new search strategy against the Hedges standard and performance characteristics of published search strategies against the standard dataset.

resultsOur search strategy retrieved 16 089 references from 269 journals during our study period. One hundred fifty-four journals yielded ≥ 20 references and ≥ 1 prognostic study or CPG. Against the Hedges standard, the new search strategy had sensitivity/specificity/precision/accuracy of 84%/80%/2%/80%, respectively. Existing published strategies tested against our standard dataset had sensitivities of 36%-94% and precision of 5%-10%. DISCUSSION: We developed a new search strategy to identify overall prognosis studies and CPGs independent of MeSH terms. These studies are important for medical decision-making, as they identify specific populations and individuals who may benefit from interventions.

conclusionOur results may benefit literature surveillance and clinical guideline efforts, as our search strategy performs as well as published search strategies while capturing literature at the time of publication.

Indexed as

PrognosisPubMedRisk AssessmentHumansInformation Storage and RetrievalSensitivity and Specificityliterature searchprognosissearch strategysensitivityspecificityupdating

Identifiers

PMID33484123
PMCPMC7973466
OpenAlexW3122082322

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.