Spinal palpation: the challenges of information retrieval using available databases

Murphy, Linda S; Reinsch, Sibylle; Najm, Wadie I.; Dickerson, Vivian M; Seffinger, Michael A.; Adams, Alan H.; Mishra, Shiraz I.

doi:10.1016/s0161-4754(03)00076-9

Cited by 18 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our data reveal that scientists are aware of these indexing inadequacies and that they use a multiple-strategy approach to overcome existing retrieval limitations. This behavior has been reported in other studies as well (Murphy et al, 2003a(Murphy et al, , 2003b. The medical group used five search TABLE 2.…”

Section: Critical Taskssupporting

confidence: 77%

Collaborative information synthesis I: A model of information behaviors of scientists in medicine and public health

Blake

Pratt

2006

J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Scientists engage in the discovery process more than any other user population, yet their day-to-day activities are often elusive. One activity that consumes much of a scientist's time is developing models that balance contradictory and redundant evidence. Driven by our desire to understand the information behaviors of this important user group, and the behaviors of scientific discovery in general, we conducted an observational study of academic research scientists as they resolved different experimental results reported in the biomedical literature. This article is the first of two that reports our findings. In this article, we introduce the Collaborative Information Synthesis (CIS) model that reflects the salient information behaviors that we observed. The CIS model emerges from a rich collection of qualitative data including interviews, electronic recordings of meetings, meeting minutes, e-mail communications, and extraction worksheets. Our findings suggest that scientists provide two information constructs: a hypothesis projection and context information. They also engage in four critical tasks: retrieval, extraction, verification, and analysis. The findings also suggest that science is not an individual but rather a collaborative activity and that scientists use the results of one analysis to inform new analyses. In Part 2, we compare and contrast existing information and cognitive models that have inadvertently reported synthesis, and then provide five recommendations that will enable designers to build information systems that support the important synthesis activity. IntroductionScientists engage in the discovery process more than any other user population, yet their day-to-day activities are often elusive. Even a scientist who actively makes discoveries in one discipline can find the activities conducted in a related field a mystery. Regardless of their specific discipline, the role of a good scientist is to develop a model of the world that accurately explains the available evidence. The development of accurate models often requires that a scientist resolve conflicting evidence.One activity that consumes much of a scientists' time is synthesis, "the dialectic combination of thesis and antithesis into a higher stage of truth" (Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 2004). This dictionary definition reflects the alternative viewpoints that often occur when multiple empirical studies explore the same phenomena. The synthesis activity results in an overall finding-a higher stage of truthwhich scientists achieve by resolving conflicting evidence. Thus, the synthesis activity requires accurately weighing a body of evidence that includes contradictions (when the study results differ) and redundancies (when study results concur) that are inevitable when multiple studies explore the same natural phenomena. In this article, we consider synthesis activities that involve evidence reported in existing literature rather than synthesis activities that require additional data collection through experimentation.New te...

show abstract

Section: Critical Taskssupporting

confidence: 77%

Collaborative information synthesis I: A model of information behaviors of scientists in medicine and public health

Blake

Pratt

2006

J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We were able to uncover an additional 29 articles using this process, which, when combined with those found in the database searches, is more than any other MP review to date. This experience was similar to that of Murphy et al, 94 who were still able to locate an additional 11 citations via manual searches and content experts, after searching 13 databases on the reliability of spinal palpation procedures.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 52%

Spinal Motion Palpation: A Comparison of Studies That Assessed Intersegmental End Feel Vs Excursion

Haneline

Cooperstein

Young

et al. 2008

Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…This is strongly supported by a number of other studies [8–13, 15, 16, 18–22, 33, 66–78]. Studies evaluating this question within the musculoskeletal field make the same conclusion: searching more than one database is necessary [14, 17, 23, 32, 79–81]. Based on results from earlier studies and the results from the present study, recommendation for an optimal systematic literature search to locate RCTs within the musculoskeletal area may be to use the three generic databases: MEDLINE; EMBASE and CENTRAL, and an additional two or more other databases.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 62%

“…In addition, when analysing the use of databases in Cochrane reviews, it was found that between 1 and 27 different databases was used [20], even though some studies indicates that searching no more than 3–5 databases seems to be sufficient,[8, 16, 17] and searching only one database would not be enough [19]. Even though MEDLINE, EMBASE and other major medical databases yield a high proportion of relevant studies, some studies found it necessary to include other sources such as reference- and citation search, browsing conference proceedings, asking experts and alike to identify all the relevant studies [9, 14, 17, 19]. The difference between the results from these studies could be due to their evaluation of different areas or due to the methods used to search the different databases; hence some of the above mentioned studies construct a new search strategy to identify studies in a given area thereby making the evaluation be dependent on not just the database, but also the quality/accuracy of the search strategy constructed [21–23].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Optimizing literature search in systematic reviews – are MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL enough for identifying effect studies within the area of musculoskeletal disorders?

Aagaard

Lund

Juhl

2016

BMC Med Res Methodol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundWhen conducting systematic reviews, it is essential to perform a comprehensive literature search to identify all published studies relevant to the specific research question. The Cochrane Collaborations Methodological Expectations of Cochrane Intervention Reviews (MECIR) guidelines state that searching MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL should be considered mandatory. The aim of this study was to evaluate the MECIR recommendations to use MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL combined, and examine the yield of using these to find randomized controlled trials (RCTs) within the area of musculoskeletal disorders.MethodsData sources were systematic reviews published by the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Review Group, including at least five RCTs, reporting a search history, searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and adding reference- and hand-searching. Additional databases were deemed eligible if they indexed RCTs, were in English and used in more than three of the systematic reviews. Relative recall was calculated as the number of studies identified by the literature search divided by the number of eligible studies i.e. included studies in the individual systematic reviews. Finally, cumulative median recall was calculated for MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL combined followed by the databases yielding additional studies.ResultsDeemed eligible was twenty-three systematic reviews and the databases included other than MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL was AMED, CINAHL, HealthSTAR, MANTIS, OT-Seeker, PEDro, PsychINFO, SCOPUS, SportDISCUS and Web of Science. Cumulative median recall for combined searching in MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL was 88.9% and increased to 90.9% when adding 10 additional databases.ConclusionSearching MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL was not sufficient for identifying all effect studies on musculoskeletal disorders, but additional ten databases did only increase the median recall by 2%. It is possible that searching databases is not sufficient to identify all relevant references, and that reviewers must rely upon additional sources in their literature search. However further research is needed.

show abstract

Spinal palpation: the challenges of information retrieval using available databases

Cited by 18 publications

References 17 publications

Collaborative information synthesis I: A model of information behaviors of scientists in medicine and public health

Collaborative information synthesis I: A model of information behaviors of scientists in medicine and public health

Spinal Motion Palpation: A Comparison of Studies That Assessed Intersegmental End Feel Vs Excursion

Optimizing literature search in systematic reviews – are MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL enough for identifying effect studies within the area of musculoskeletal disorders?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About