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

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....

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Agoritsas, Thomas, Merglen, Arnaud, Courvoisier, Delphine S, Combescure, Christophe, Garin, Nicolas, Perrier, Arnaud, Perneger, Thomas V
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: JMIR Publications 2012-06-01
Series:Journal of Medical Internet Research
Online Access:http://www.jmir.org/2012/3/e85/
id doaj-0b173b01e32e437d9c1fbeba822c49b5
record_format Article
spelling doaj-0b173b01e32e437d9c1fbeba822c49b52021-04-02T18:40:07ZengJMIR PublicationsJournal of Medical Internet Research1438-88712012-06-01143e8510.2196/jmir.2021Sensitivity and Predictive Value of 15 PubMed Search Strategies to Answer Clinical Questions Rated Against Full Systematic ReviewsAgoritsas, ThomasMerglen, ArnaudCourvoisier, Delphine SCombescure, ChristopheGarin, NicolasPerrier, ArnaudPerneger, Thomas V 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.http://www.jmir.org/2012/3/e85/
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Agoritsas, Thomas
Merglen, Arnaud
Courvoisier, Delphine S
Combescure, Christophe
Garin, Nicolas
Perrier, Arnaud
Perneger, Thomas V
spellingShingle Agoritsas, Thomas
Merglen, Arnaud
Courvoisier, Delphine S
Combescure, Christophe
Garin, Nicolas
Perrier, Arnaud
Perneger, Thomas V
Sensitivity and Predictive Value of 15 PubMed Search Strategies to Answer Clinical Questions Rated Against Full Systematic Reviews
Journal of Medical Internet Research
author_facet Agoritsas, Thomas
Merglen, Arnaud
Courvoisier, Delphine S
Combescure, Christophe
Garin, Nicolas
Perrier, Arnaud
Perneger, Thomas V
author_sort Agoritsas, Thomas
title Sensitivity and Predictive Value of 15 PubMed Search Strategies to Answer Clinical Questions Rated Against Full Systematic Reviews
title_short Sensitivity and Predictive Value of 15 PubMed Search Strategies to Answer Clinical Questions Rated Against Full Systematic Reviews
title_full Sensitivity and Predictive Value of 15 PubMed Search Strategies to Answer Clinical Questions Rated Against Full Systematic Reviews
title_fullStr Sensitivity and Predictive Value of 15 PubMed Search Strategies to Answer Clinical Questions Rated Against Full Systematic Reviews
title_full_unstemmed Sensitivity and Predictive Value of 15 PubMed Search Strategies to Answer Clinical Questions Rated Against Full Systematic Reviews
title_sort sensitivity and predictive value of 15 pubmed search strategies to answer clinical questions rated against full systematic reviews
publisher JMIR Publications
series Journal of Medical Internet Research
issn 1438-8871
publishDate 2012-06-01
description 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.
url http://www.jmir.org/2012/3/e85/
work_keys_str_mv AT agoritsasthomas sensitivityandpredictivevalueof15pubmedsearchstrategiestoanswerclinicalquestionsratedagainstfullsystematicreviews
AT merglenarnaud sensitivityandpredictivevalueof15pubmedsearchstrategiestoanswerclinicalquestionsratedagainstfullsystematicreviews
AT courvoisierdelphines sensitivityandpredictivevalueof15pubmedsearchstrategiestoanswerclinicalquestionsratedagainstfullsystematicreviews
AT combescurechristophe sensitivityandpredictivevalueof15pubmedsearchstrategiestoanswerclinicalquestionsratedagainstfullsystematicreviews
AT garinnicolas sensitivityandpredictivevalueof15pubmedsearchstrategiestoanswerclinicalquestionsratedagainstfullsystematicreviews
AT perrierarnaud sensitivityandpredictivevalueof15pubmedsearchstrategiestoanswerclinicalquestionsratedagainstfullsystematicreviews
AT pernegerthomasv sensitivityandpredictivevalueof15pubmedsearchstrategiestoanswerclinicalquestionsratedagainstfullsystematicreviews
_version_ 1721551351141367808