A high-yield strategy to identify randomized controlled trials for systematic reviews.

A R Jadad · Henry J McQuay

78 citations0/0 files storedPubMed

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Meta-analysis and systematic reviews scientometrics and bibliometrics research Health Sciences Research and Education

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare the sensitivity, precision, and the costs in time of searching by hand and by MEDLINE to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for systematic reviews. DESIGN: Nine anesthetic and pain journals were searched by both MEDLINE and by hand for the years 1970, 1980, and 1990, recording number of publications and time taken to identify randomized double-blind controlled trials in pain research. RESULTS: Thirty-four volumes, containing 5583 full publications (24,417 pages) and 2889 abstracts and letters (1755 pages) were hand searched; 142 eligible (definite RCTs) full papers and 171 eligible abstracts and letters were identified. The MEDLINE search strategy yielded 274 reports of which 138 were eligible; 125 of these were full papers, 1 was a letter and 12 were abstracts. Two full papers which were identified by the MEDLINE search strategy were missed by hand search. The overall sensitivity of the MEDLINE search strategy for full papers was 87% ([125/144] x 100) with a precision of 52% ([125/242] x 100). This is the best combination of sensitivity and precision reported to date. Abstracts were mostly in supplement issues which were not indexed. Combining the MEDLINE search strategy with selective hand search of abstracts and letters gave a sensitivity of 94%. CONCLUSIONS: Hand search of entire journals remains the most accurate method for identification of the eligible reports, but it is the most time-consuming. The MEDLINE search was faster, but it failed to identify at least 13% of the indexed eligible reports. Ideally, both hand search and MEDLINE should be used. The combination of MEDLINE with hand search restricted to letters and abstracts might be an acceptable alternative for reviewers with insufficient funds to support a full hand search process.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

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

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 78 citations exist upstream.

Cited by

1998Systematic reviews of trials and other studies.2005EMBASE search strategies for identifying methodologically sound diagnostic studies for use by clinicians and researchers 2020Which are the most sensitive search filters to identify randomized controlled trials in MEDLINE?2003Clinical Evidence diagnosis: developing a sensitive search strategy to retrieve diagnostic studies on deep vein thrombosis: a pragmatic approach 2006Optimal search strategies for identifying mental health content in MEDLINE: an analytic survey 1993Searching the literature. Be systematic in your searching.2005PubMed perspective of family medicine research: where does it stand?2005Synthesizing medical evidence: systematic reviews and metaanalyses

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.