Sensitivity and precision of adverse effects search filters in MEDLINE and EMBASE: a case study of fractures with thiazolidinediones

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Search filters have been developed in MEDLINE and EMBASE to help overcome the challenges of searching electronic databases for information on adverse effects. However, little evaluation of their effectiveness has been carried out. OBJECTIVES: To measure the sensitivity and precision of available adverse effects search filters in MEDLINE and EMBASE. METHODS: A case study systematic review of fracture related adverse effects associated with the use of thiazolidinediones was used. Twelve MEDLINE search strategies and three EMBASE search strategies were tested. RESULTS: Nineteen relevant references from MEDLINE and 24 from EMBASE were included in the review. Four search filters in MEDLINE achieved high sensitivity (95 or 100%) with an improved level of precision from searches without any adverse effects filter. High precision in MEDLINE could also be achieved (up to 53%) using search filters that rely on Medical Subject Headings. No search filter in EMBASE achieved high precision (all were under 5%) and the highest sensitivity in EMBASE was 83%. CONCLUSIONS: Adverse effects search filters appear to be effective in MEDLINE for achieving either high sensitivity or high precision. Search filters in EMBASE, however, do not appear as effective, particularly in improving precision.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 26 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.