ArticleCochrane evidence synthesis and methods2026
Sensitivity and Precision of Search Strategies Built Using a Text-Mining Word Frequency Tool (PubReMiner) Compared to Current Best Practice for Building Search Strategies: A Study Within a Review (SWAR).
Article in Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Sensitivity and Precision of Search Strategies Built Using a Text-Mining Word Frequency Tool (PubReMiner) Compared to Current Best Practice for Building Search Strategies: A Study Within a Review (SWAR).Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: PubReMiner is a text-mining tool that analyses a seed set of citations to assess word frequency in titles, abstracts, and Medical Subject Headings (MeSH). This study aimed to determine the sensitivity and precision of search strategies developed using the PubReMiner tool compared to conventional search strategies developed by a librarian at our institution. Methods: Twelve consecutive reviews conducted at our center were included from September 2023 to January 2025. These reviews included various types of evidence synthesis, including rapid reviews and systematic reviews, covering a variety of topics. One librarian developed a comprehensive search strategy, which included a conventional MEDLINE search for each review. Separately, two librarians independently developed MEDLINE search strategies using PubReMiner-generated word frequency tables (PubReMiner 1 and PubReMiner 2). All search strategies were constructed by experienced librarians using predefined work instructions. Primary outcomes were sensitivity and precision. Secondary outcomes included the number needed to read, the number of unique references retrieved, and the time taken to construct each strategy. Results: Sensitivity of PubReMiner strategies was generally lower than that of conventional strategies; however, in one review, PubReMiner achieved a higher sensitivity (83.87%) than the conventional strategy (58.06%). Only the sensitivity outcome showed a statistically significant difference between search methods (Friedman test Conclusion: While PubReMiner offers efficiency advantages, its inconsistent performance in retrieving relevant studies suggests that it should not replace conventional search strategies. The study illustrates the value of multi-review SWARs in producing evidence that informs evidence synthesis practices.
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.