Search Filters for Finding Prognostic and Diagnostic Prediction Studies in Medline to Enhance Systematic Reviews

Abstract

BackgroundThe interest in prognostic reviews is increasing, but to properly review existing evidence an accurate search filer for finding prediction research is needed. The aim of this paper was to validate and update two previously introduced search filters for finding prediction research in Medline: the Ingui filter and the Haynes Broad filter.Methodology/Principal FindingsBased on a hand search of 6 general journals in 2008 we constructed two sets of papers. Set 1 consisted of prediction research papers (n = 71), and set 2 consisted of the remaining papers (n = 1133). Both search filters were validated in two ways, using diagnostic accuracy measures as performance measures. First, we compared studies in set 1 (reference) with studies retrieved by the search strategies as applied in Medline. Second, we compared studies from 4 published systematic reviews (reference) with studies retrieved by the search filter as applied in Medline. Next – using word frequency methods – we constructed an additional search string for finding prediction research. Both search filters were good in identifying clinical prediction models: sensitivity ranged from 0.94 to 1.0 using our hand search as reference, and 0.78 to 0.89 using the systematic reviews as reference. This latter performance measure even increased to around 0.95 (range 0.90 to 0.97) when either search filter was combined with the additional string that we developed. Retrieval rate of explorative prediction research was poor, both using our hand search or our systematic review as reference, and even combined with our additional search string: sensitivity ranged from 0.44 to 0.85.Conclusions/SignificanceExplorative prediction research is difficult to find in Medline, using any of the currently available search filters. Yet, application of either the Ingui filter or the Haynes broad filter results in a very low number missed clinical prediction model studies.

Predicting adverse drug reactions in older adults; a systematic review of the risk prediction models

“…The proposal to develop reporting guidelines that stipulate registration of all risk-prediction research should go some way in reducing future reporting bias 28. These guidelines could also be applied to protocols and manuscripts when designing or publishing risk-prediction research, and may be a more suitable tool for quality assessment in the future 29. In the absence of a consensus guideline, we used an amalgamation of standards for reporting risk-prediction research to carry out this review.…”

A guide to systematic review and meta-analysis of prognostic factor studies

“…A broad search comes at the (often considerable) expense of retrieving many irrelevant records. Geersing and colleagues24 validated various existing search strategies for prognosis studies and suggested a generic filter for identifying studies of prognostic factors,232526 which extended the work of Ingui, Haynes, and Wong 232526. When tested in a single review of prognostic factors, this generic filter had a number needed to read of 569 to identify one relevant article, emphasising the difficulty in targeting prognostic factor articles.…”

Prediction models for the risk of gestational diabetes: a systematic review

“…Key words for GDM and first trimester of pregnancy were combined with a validated search strategy for prediction modeling studies [17]. Detailed information on the exact search syntax is presented in Additional file 2.…”