ArticleBMC medical research methodology2025
Development and validation of high-sensitivity and high-specificity pubmed search filters for systematic and non-systematic reviews.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo develop and compare the accuracy of different PubMed search strategies (filters) for systematic and non-systematic reviews in dental journals.
methodsThis validation study included articles published in 2019 in 15 dental journals. Two search filters were developed: (1) a high-sensitivity filter to retrieve all possible review articles, and (2) a high-specificity filter for systematic reviews. Two previously published filters were used as benchmarks. The gold standard method for identifying the study methodology was manual reading of the full text. Accuracy, sensitivity and specificity were calculated.
resultsAmong the 2246 articles published, 6.7% (n = 150) were systematic reviews and 5.9% (n = 132) were other types of reviews. The high-sensitivity filter retrieved 147 of 150 systematic reviews and showed a sensitivity of 98.0% (95%CI: 94.3-99.6) and specificity of 88.9% (95%CI: 87.5-90.2). The high-specificity filter had 96.7% (95%CI: 92.4-98.9) sensitivity and 99.1% (95%CI: 98.6-99.5) specificity for retrieving systematic reviews. The accuracy of this filter for systematic reviews was 97.9% (95%CI: 96.4-99.4), which was higher than the PubMed benchmark filter (p < 0.05) and similar to another longer filter.
conclusionThis study provides two new highly accurate search filters for PubMed that can be used by clinicians, researchers and policymakers.
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.