ArticleJournal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA2024
The NICE search filters for treating and managing COVID-19: validation in MEDLINE and Embase (Ovid).
Article in Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prevalence and Correlates of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Symptoms During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Canada: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis: Prévalence et corrélats des symptômes du trouble de stress post-traumatique pendant la pandémie de COVID-19 au Canada : Revue systématique et méta-analyse.Canadian journal of psychiatry. Revue canadienne de psychiatrie · 2026Review
- Review
- Gender disparities in COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in high-income countries: an umbrella review protocol.BMJ open · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: In this paper we report how the United Kingdom's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) search filters for treating and managing COVID-19 were validated for use in MEDLINE (Ovid) and Embase (Ovid). The objective was to achieve at least 98.9% for recall and 64% for precision. Methods: We did two tests of recall to finalize the draft search filters. We updated the data from an earlier peer-reviewed publication for the first recall test. For the second test, we collated a set of systematic reviews from Epistemonikos COVID-19 L.OVE and extracted their primary studies. We calculated precision by screening all the results retrieved by the draft search filters from a targeted sample covering 2020-23. We developed a gold-standard set to validate the search filter by using all articles available from the "Treatment and Management" subject filter in the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register. Results: In the first recall test, both filters had 99.5% recall. In the second test, recall was 99.7% and 99.8% in MEDLINE and Embase respectively. Precision was 91.1% in a deduplicated sample of records. In validation, we found the MEDLINE filter had recall of 99.86% of the 14,625 records in the gold-standard set. The Embase filter had 99.88% recall of 19,371 records. Conclusion: We have validated search filters to identify records on treating and managing COVID-19. The filters may require subsequent updates, if new SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern or interest are discussed in future literature.
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.