ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2024
Added Value of Medical Subject Headings Terms in Search Strategies of Systematic Reviews: Comparative Study.
Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Comparative effects of different exercise modalities on executive function in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Pooled it
- Stepped-care models for cancer symptom management: a systematic review of efficacy and cost-effectiveness.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2026Pooled it
- Implementation effectiveness, barriers, and real-world outcomes of neuromuscular training programs for ACL injury prevention in female athletes: systematic review with narrative synthesis using SWiM framework.Frontiers in public health · 2026Pooled it
- Health risk behaviours, mental health and HbA1c: an overview of reviews of observational studies.BMJ open · 2025Pooled it
- The Diagnostic and Prognostic Impact of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance in Ischemic Heart Disease: A Systematic Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- From review to synthesis: A step-by-step methodological guide to systematic reviews and multilevel meta-analyses.Behavior research methods · 2026Article
- Adult social care nursing: A hybrid concept analysis.International journal of nursing studies advances · 2026Article
- BibliZap: An exploratory evaluation of an automated multi-level citation searching tool for systematic and rapid reviews.Research synthesis methods · 2026Article
- Scars That Speak: Unraveling the Oncogenic Aftermath of Pulmonary Tuberculosis-A Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- ConceptDrift: leveraging spatial, temporal and semantic evolution of biomedical concepts for hypothesis generation.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe massive increase in the number of published scientific articles enhances knowledge but makes it more complicated to summarize results. The Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) thesaurus was created in the mid-20th century with the aim of systematizing article indexing and facilitating their retrieval. Despite the advent of search engines, few studies have questioned the relevance of the MeSH thesaurus, and none have done so systematically.
objectiveThe objective of this study was to estimate the added value of using MeSH terms in PubMed queries for systematic reviews (SRs).
methodsSRs published in 4 high-impact medical journals in general medicine over the past 10 years were selected. Only SRs for which a PubMed query was provided were included. Each query was transformed to obtain 3 versions: the original query (V1), the query with free-text terms only (V2), and the query with MeSH terms only (V3). These 3 queries were compared with each other based on their sensitivity and positive predictive values.
resultsIn total, 59 SRs were included. The suppression of MeSH terms had an impact on the number of relevant articles retrieved for 24 (41%) out of 59 SRs. The median (IQR) sensitivities of queries V1 and V2 were 77.8% (62.1%-95.2%) and 71.4% (42.6%-90%), respectively. V1 queries provided an average of 2.62 additional relevant papers per SR compared with V2 queries. However, an additional 820.29 papers had to be screened. The cost of screening an additional collected paper was therefore 313.09, which was slightly more than triple the mean reading cost associated with V2 queries (88.67).
conclusionsOur results revealed that removing MeSH terms from a query decreases sensitivity while slightly increasing the positive predictive value. Queries containing both MeSH and free-text terms yielded more relevant articles but required screening many additional papers. Despite this additional workload, MeSH terms remain indispensable for SRs.
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.