Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36463100›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2022

Development and validation of paired MEDLINE and Embase search filters for cost-utility studies.

Wesley Hubbard, Nicola Walsh, Thomas Hudson, Andrea Heath, Jeremy Dietz, Gabriel Rogers

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Review
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.

Wesley HubbardNational Institute for Health and Care Excellence, Level 1A City Tower Piccadilly Plaza, M1 4BT, Manchester, UK. wesley.hubbard@nice.org.uk.
Nicola WalshNational Institute for Health and Care Excellence, Level 1A City Tower Piccadilly Plaza, M1 4BT, Manchester, UK.
Thomas HudsonNational Institute for Health and Care Excellence, Level 1A City Tower Piccadilly Plaza, M1 4BT, Manchester, UK.
Andrea HeathNational Institute for Health and Care Excellence, Level 1A City Tower Piccadilly Plaza, M1 4BT, Manchester, UK.
Jeremy DietzNational Institute for Health and Care Excellence, Level 1A City Tower Piccadilly Plaza, M1 4BT, Manchester, UK.
Gabriel RogersDivision of Population Health, Health Services Research and Primary Care, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, Manchester Centre for Health Economics, The University of Manchester, Jean McFarlane Building, Oxford Road, M13 9PL, Manchester, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSearch filters are standardised sets of search terms, with validated performance, that are designed to retrieve studies with specific characteristics. A cost-utility analysis (CUA) is the preferred type of economic evaluation to underpin decision-making at the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Until now, when searching for economic evidence for NICE guidelines, we have used a broad set of health economic-related search terms, even when the reviewer's interest is confined to CUAs alone.

methodsWe developed search filters to retrieve CUAs from MEDLINE and Embase. Our aim was to achieve recall of 90% or better across both databases while reducing the overall yield compared with our existing broad economic filter. We used the relative recall method along with topic expert input to derive and validate 3 pairs of filters, assessed by their ability to identify a gold-standard set of CUAs that had been used in published NICE guidelines. We developed and validated MEDLINE and Embase filters in pairs (testing whether, when used together, they find target studies in at least 1 database), as this is how they are used in practice. We examined the proxy-precision of our new filters by comparing their overall yield with our previous approach using publications indexed in a randomly selected year (2010).

resultsAll 3 filter-pairs exceeded our target recall and led to substantial improvements in search proxy-precision. Our paired 'sensitive' filters achieved 100% recall (95% CI 99.0 to 100%) in the validation set. Our paired 'precise' filters also had very good recall (97.6% [95%CI: 95.4 to 98.9%]). We estimate that, compared with our previous search strategy, using the paired 'sensitive' filters would reduce reviewer screening burden by a factor of 5 and the 'precise' versions would do so by a factor of more than 20.

conclusionsEach of the 3 paired cost-utility filters enable the identification of almost all CUAs from MEDLINE and Embase from the validation set, with substantial savings in screening workload compared to our previous search practice. We would encourage other researchers who regularly use multiple databases to consider validating search filters in combination as this will better reflect how they use databases in their everyday work.

Indexed as

IncomeResearch PersonnelCost-Benefit AnalysisDatabases, FactualHumansMEDLINECost-utilityEvidence selectionPaired analysisRelative recallSearch filters

Identifiers

PMID36463100
PMCPMC9719242

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.