PubMed had a higher sensitivity than Ovid-MEDLINE in the search for systematic reviews

Katchamart, Wanruchada; Faulkner, Amy; Feldman, Brian M.; Tomlinson, George; Bombardier, Claire

doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.06.004

Cited by 23 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…• Participants used different search interfaces (Pubmed, OvidSP), which might have had an impact on retrieval results [30,31]. In addition, the searches based on the objective or conceptual approaches were conducted at different times (between a few days and 6 months difference).…”

Section: Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prospective comparison of search strategies for systematic reviews: an objective approach yielded higher sensitivity than a conceptual one

Hausner

Guddat

Hermanns

et al. 2016

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prospective comparison of search strategies for systematic reviews: an objective approach yielded higher sensitivity than a conceptual one

Hausner

Guddat

Hermanns

et al. 2016

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…MEDLINE content can be searched via several search interfaces, the majority of which are provided by fee-based subscription services (e.g., Ovid, EBSCO, or ProQuest), although it can be accessed for free using PubMed. When searching for systematic reviews, PubMed has been shown to have a higher retrieval rate than fee-based versions of MEDLINE, such as Ovid [1]. PubMed enables users to search MEDLINE, PubMed citations that will never be indexed on MEDLINE, and other sources, such as online books.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Supplementary searches of PubMed to improve currency of MEDLINE and MEDLINE In-Process searches via Ovid

Duffy

Kock

Misso

et al. 2017

jmla

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: The research investigated whether conducting a supplementary search of PubMed in addition to the main MEDLINE (Ovid) search for a systematic review is worthwhile and to ascertain whether this PubMed search can be conducted quickly and if it retrieves unique, recently published, and ahead-of-print studies that are subsequently considered for inclusion in the final systematic review.Methods: Searches of PubMed were conducted after MEDLINE (Ovid) and MEDLINE In-Process (Ovid) searches had been completed for seven recent reviews. The searches were limited to records not in MEDLINE or MEDLINE In-Process (Ovid).Results: Additional unique records were identified for all of the investigated reviews. Search strategies were adapted quickly to run in PubMed, and reviewer screening of the results was not time consuming. For each of the investigated reviews, studies were ordered for full screening; in six cases, studies retrieved from the supplementary PubMed searches were included in the final systematic review.Conclusion: Supplementary searching of PubMed for studies unavailable elsewhere is worthwhile and improves the currency of the systematic reviews. When conducting comprehensive literature searches for systematic reviews of health care interventions, searchers almost always include one bibliographic database, MEDLINE. MEDLINE content can be searched via several search interfaces, the majority of which are provided by fee-based subscription services (e.g., Ovid, EBSCO, or ProQuest), although it can be accessed for free using PubMed. When searching for systematic reviews, PubMed has been shown to have a higher retrieval rate than fee-based versions of MEDLINE, such as Ovid [1]. PubMed enables users to search MEDLINE, PubMed citations that will never be indexed on MEDLINE, and other sources, such as online books. Despite this and the fact that PubMed is freely available, many information specialists prefer to search using sophisticated interfaces (usually fee-based) that enable the design of complex search strategies.PubMed has relatively limited search capabilities. For example, proximity searching is not possible and truncation is limited to the first 600 variations. The lack of proximity search operators can be a significant hindrance when attempting to conduct searches for systematic reviews in PubMed, as phrase searching or use of the Boolean ''AND'' to combine terms are the only alternatives. This can produce a search strategy that is either too precise when using phrases or too sensitive when using the Boolean ''AND.'' Searching MEDLINE via more sophisticated interfaces enables much greater flexibility when conducting searches for systematic reviews, allowing information specialists to find a better balance between precision and sensitivity that is not possible in PubMed.Migration of records from PubMed into fee-based subscription services is usually quite timely. Studies indicate that indexed MEDLINE records and

show abstract

“…The brief report of Katchamart et al [1] raises the highly relevant question to which quantity retrieval results obtained with PubMed or Ovid-MEDLINE are comparable. As this report clearly shows, the answer to this question has remained unclear for highly trained information scientists or librarians as well as less-experienced users of these search interfaces.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…They compared the result sets and after finding that one relevant Japanese source [2] was missing from the Ovid-MEDLINE concluded that ''PubMed has a slightly higher sensitivity than Ovid-MEDLINE with comparable precision and NNR.'' Unfortunately, Katchamart However, the flaw in Katchamart et al [1] can be explained because of a series of problems with literature retrieval in general and MEDLINE retrieval in particular:…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Semantically equivalent PubMed and Ovid-MEDLINE queries: different retrieval results because of database subset inclusion

Boeker

Vach

Motschall

2012

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PubMed had a higher sensitivity than Ovid-MEDLINE in the search for systematic reviews

Cited by 23 publications

References 13 publications

Prospective comparison of search strategies for systematic reviews: an objective approach yielded higher sensitivity than a conceptual one

Prospective comparison of search strategies for systematic reviews: an objective approach yielded higher sensitivity than a conceptual one

Supplementary searches of PubMed to improve currency of MEDLINE and MEDLINE In-Process searches via Ovid

Semantically equivalent PubMed and Ovid-MEDLINE queries: different retrieval results because of database subset inclusion

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About