Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35841125›Full record

ArticleResearch synthesis methods2023

Investigation of text-mining methodologies to aid the construction of search strategies in systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy-a case study.

Hannah O'Keefe, Judith Rankin, Sheila A Wallace, Fiona Beyer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Research synthesis methods, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

4 authors.

Hannah O'KeefeEvidence Synthesis Group, National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Innovation Observatory, Newcastle University, Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0107-711X
Judith RankinMaternal and Child Health, Population Health Sciences Institute, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University, Medical School, Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5355-454X
Sheila A WallaceCochrane Incontinence, Evidence Synthesis Group, Population Health Sciences Institute, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2853-3653
Fiona BeyerEvidence Synthesis Group, National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Innovation Observatory, Newcastle University, Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6396-3467

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/K02325X/1National Institute of Health Research Applied Research Collaboration North East and North Cumbria
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Current methodologies for designing search strategies rely heavily on the knowledge and expertise of information specialists. Yet, the volume and complexity of scientific literature is overwhelming for even the most experienced information specialists, making it difficult to produce robust search strategies for complex systematic reviews. In this case study, we aimed to assess and describe the benefits and limitations of using semi-automated text-mining tools for designing search strategies in a systematic review of diagnostic test accuracy. An experienced information specialist designed a search strategy using traditional methods. This strategy was then amended to include additional terms identified by text-mining tools. We evaluated the usability and expertise required, risk of introducing bias to the search, precision of the search strategy and rated the usefulness of the tools. Thirteen of the 16 investigated tools produced a total of 40 additional terms, beyond those in the original search strategy. This resulted in 11 previously unidentified relevant articles being retrieved. Precision was reduced or remained the same in all cases. After considering all aspects of the investigation we rated each application, with two being 'extremely useful', three being 'useful', three having 'no impact' and eight being 'not very useful'. Comparative analysis revealed discrepancies between similar tools. Our findings have implications for the way in which these methodologies are used and applied to search strategies. If semi-automated techniques are to become mainstream in information retrieval for complex systematic reviews, we need tailored tools that fit information specialists' requirements across disciplines.

Indexed as

Data MiningPublicationsDiagnostic Tests, RoutineSystematic Reviews as Topicinformation retrievalliterature searchsemi-automationsystematic reviewtext-mining

Identifiers

PMID35841125
PMCPMC10088010

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.