Evaluation of PubMed filters used for evidence-based searching: validation using relative recall

Hoogendam, Arjen; Robbé, P.F. de Vries; Stalenhoef, Anton F. H.; Overbeke, A. John P.M.

doi:10.3163/1536-5050.97.3.007

Cited by 28 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…When applied to the whole Medline database, the Clinical Queries broad filter retained 99% of hand-selected studies, while the narrow filter retained 93% [27]. Hoogendam et al found similar results [31]. Our study confirmed the high sensitivity of the Clinical Queries filters when applied to specific clinical questions.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 82%

Sensitivity and Predictive Value of 15 PubMed Search Strategies to Answer Clinical Questions Rated Against Full Systematic Reviews

Agoritsas

Merglen²,

Courvoisier³

et al. 2012

J Med Internet Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundClinicians perform searches in PubMed daily, but retrieving relevant studies is challenging due to the rapid expansion of medical knowledge. Little is known about the performance of search strategies when they are applied to answer specific clinical questions.ObjectiveTo compare the performance of 15 PubMed search strategies in retrieving relevant clinical trials on therapeutic interventions.MethodsWe used Cochrane systematic reviews to identify relevant trials for 30 clinical questions. Search terms were extracted from the abstract using a predefined procedure based on the population, interventions, comparison, outcomes (PICO) framework and combined into queries. We tested 15 search strategies that varied in their query (PIC or PICO), use of PubMed’s Clinical Queries therapeutic filters (broad or narrow), search limits, and PubMed links to related articles. We assessed sensitivity (recall) and positive predictive value (precision) of each strategy on the first 2 PubMed pages (40 articles) and on the complete search output.ResultsThe performance of the search strategies varied widely according to the clinical question. Unfiltered searches and those using the broad filter of Clinical Queries produced large outputs and retrieved few relevant articles within the first 2 pages, resulting in a median sensitivity of only 10%–25%. In contrast, all searches using the narrow filter performed significantly better, with a median sensitivity of about 50% (all P < .001 compared with unfiltered queries) and positive predictive values of 20%–30% (P < .001 compared with unfiltered queries). This benefit was consistent for most clinical questions. Searches based on related articles retrieved about a third of the relevant studies.ConclusionsThe Clinical Queries narrow filter, along with well-formulated queries based on the PICO framework, provided the greatest aid in retrieving relevant clinical trials within the 2 first PubMed pages. These results can help clinicians apply effective strategies to answer their questions at the point of care.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 82%

Sensitivity and Predictive Value of 15 PubMed Search Strategies to Answer Clinical Questions Rated Against Full Systematic Reviews

Agoritsas

Merglen²,

Courvoisier³

et al. 2012

J Med Internet Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The search focused on RCTs published between 1 January 2013 and 31 December 2017, using PubMed's Clinical Trial[ptyp] filter. Use of this filter was intended to maximize sensitivity to ensure that no relevant RCTs were excluded . Journals listed in the addiction category of Google Scholar metrics were selected based on their h5‐index.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of selective outcome reporting and trial registration practices among addiction clinical trials

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and Aims Selective outcome reporting occurs when trialists pre-specify primary and secondary outcomes during trial planning but alter the definitions in the published report. Here, we investigate selective outcome reporting in published addiction randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and evaluate whether particular funding sources are associated with an increased likelihood of selective outcome reporting. Design We conducted a cross-sectional study of published addiction clinical trials. A PubMed search was performed to identify RCTs in addiction journals from 2013 to 2017. Included studies used a randomized design to address one of the following topics: (1) drug, alcohol and tobacco addiction prevention, (2) stabilization following excessive use of a substance, (3) relapse prevention or (4) recovery maintenance.Setting Single-center, medical research institution. Participants Our sample included 162 RCTs that were prospectively registered with a clearly defined primary outcome. Measurement We extracted the following items from addiction RCTs: journal, funding source, trial registry number (if included), sample size, dates of subject enrollment, whether primary and secondary outcomes were denoted, all published outcomes, P-value for all outcomes and whether authors mentioned any deviations from the trial protocol as it related to RCT outcomes. Findings In total, 47 of 162 RCTs (29.0%) had at least one major discrepancy between the trial registry and published RCT. Overall, these 47 RCTs included 54 major discrepancies. The most common major discrepancy was demotion of a primary registered outcome (19/54, 35.2%). The majority of RCTs (132/162, 81.5%) were funded from public sources. Additionally, 166 RCTs were excluded from our sample because registration could not be confirmed. Conclusions There is evidence suggestive of selective outcome reporting in addiction randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The most common major discrepancies pertained to the primary outcome.

show abstract

“…We used those terms to identify published phase 2 trials for each drug using the PubMed search engine with the “clinical trial” filter 6 (January 1, 2005, to April 30, 2014). One reviewer (D.D.G.B.)…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Use of Expansion Cohorts in Phase I Trials and Probability of Success in Phase II for 381 Anticancer Drugs

Bugano

Hess

Jardim

et al. 2017

Clinical Cancer Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Evaluate the association between the use of phase 1 (P1) expansion cohorts (ECs) and drug performance in phase 2 (P2) as well as time to approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Methods We performed a systematic search of MEDLINE for single-agent dose-finding adult oncology P1 trials published 2006–2011 and subsequent P2 trials. Successful P2 trials were those that met their primary endpoints. Dates of approval were obtained from the Drugs@FDA website April 2014. A logistic regression model was used to determine the associations between variables and success in P2. Results We identified 533 P1 trials evaluating 381 drugs; 112 drugs had at least one P1 trial with an EC. P1 trials with ECs of 2–20 patients were associated with a higher rate of successful P2 trials than those with no EC (48% vs 27%, OR 2.1, 95%CI 1.1–4.0, p = 0.037). P2 success rates were the same for EC with 2–20 and more than 20 patients (48% vs 52%). Other positive associations were: disease-specific trials (OR 1.7, 95%CI 1.0–2.9, p=0.037), industry sponsorship (OR 2.9, 95%CI 1.5–5.7, p = 0.0024) and response rate of 6%-20% (OR 2.89, 95%CI 1.6–5.2, p = 0.0007). Drugs tested in P1 trials with ECs had a higher rate of 5-year-approval (19% vs 5%, HR 4.4, 95% CI 2.2–8.8, p < 0.001). Conclusion The use of ECs in P1 trials was associated with success of subsequent P2 trials. However, confounders may play a role in this association.

show abstract

Evaluation of PubMed filters used for evidence-based searching: validation using relative recall

Cited by 28 publications

References 20 publications

Sensitivity and Predictive Value of 15 PubMed Search Strategies to Answer Clinical Questions Rated Against Full Systematic Reviews

Sensitivity and Predictive Value of 15 PubMed Search Strategies to Answer Clinical Questions Rated Against Full Systematic Reviews

Evaluation of selective outcome reporting and trial registration practices among addiction clinical trials

Use of Expansion Cohorts in Phase I Trials and Probability of Success in Phase II for 381 Anticancer Drugs

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About