ArticleJournal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA2024
Understanding the performance of geographic limits on Web of Science Core Collection databases, using the United Kingdom as an example.
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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Web of Science-Based Visualization of Mapping Global Scientific Production on Epstein-Barr Virus-Associated Autoimmune Diseases: A Bibliometric Study.Health science reports · 2025Article
- From immunological mechanisms to targeted therapies: a bibliometric analysis of vitiligo treatment research (2005-2025).Frontiers in immunology · 2025Review
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: To consider the approaches within Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC) databases for limiting geographically. To compare the limits to an adaptation of NICE's UK MEDLINE filter for use on WoSCC databases. Methods: We tested and appraised the inbuilt functions and search field options that support identification by countries/regions and affiliations. We compared these with an adapted filter to identify healthcare research on or about the UK. We calculated the recall of the inbuilt limits and filter using 177 studies and investigated why records were missed. We also calculated the percentage reduction of the overall number-needed-to-screen (ONNS). Results: Inbuilt limits within WoSCC enable identification of research from specific countries/regions or affiliations if there is data in the address field. Refining by affiliations allows retrieval of research where affiliations are in the 200 or 500 most frequent for a set of results. An adaptation of the UK MEDLINE filter achieved an average of 97% recall. ONNS was significantly reduced using the filter. However, studies where the countries or regions are only mentioned within the full text or other non-searchable fields will be missed. Conclusion: Information specialists should consider how inbuilt geographic limits operate on WoSCC and whether these are suitable for their research. The adapted filter can sensitively limit to the UK and could be useful for systematic reviews due to its high recall and ability to significantly reduce ONNS. Geographic filters can be feasible to adapt for use on WoSCC databases (where similar search fields are used between platforms).
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.