CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 116Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsscientometrics and bibliometrics researchInformation Retrieval and Search Behavior

A comparison of handsearching versus MEDLINE searching to identify reports of randomized controlled trials

Hopewell, S., Clarke, M., Lusher, A., Lefebvre, C., Westby, M.·2002·Statistics in Medicine
DOI 10.1002/sim.1191
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This study aims to compare handsearching to a basic MEDLINE search for the identification of reports of randomized trials in specialized health care journals. Twenty‐two specialized health care journals, published in the U.K., were handsearched for all reports of controlled trials (as defined by the Cochrane Collaboration). The reports of trials, which were judged to be definitely randomized, were identified from a random sample of three years per journal and form one element of this study. A MEDLINE search using the publication type terms ‘randomized controlled trial’ and ‘controlled clinical trial’ was also performed for the same journal years. The reports of trials retrieved by handsearching were then compared against those retrieved from the MEDLINE search, to identify differences in retrieval between the two techniques. Reports of randomized trials identified by the MEDLINE search but not found by handsearching were individually assessed to see if they met the Cochrane eligibility criteria for a report of a randomized trial. A total of 714 reports of randomized trials were found by using a combination of both handsearching and MEDLINE searching. Of these, 369 (52 per cent) were identified only by handsearching and 32 (4 per cent) were identified only by MEDLINE searching. Of the reports identified only by handsearching, 252 had no MEDLINE record, of which 232 (92 per cent) were meeting abstracts or published in supplements; 117 (25 per cent) of the 462 reports of randomized trials which had a MEDLINE record were missed by the electronic search because they did not have either of the publication type terms ‘randomized controlled trial’ or ‘controlled clinical trial’. This proportion varied depending on when the reports of randomized trials were published (that is, before or after the introduction of the MEDLINE publication type terms above). The highest additional yield from handsearching compared to MEDLINE searching was for reports of randomized trials published prior to 1991 and from handsearching the non‐MEDLINE indexed parts of a journal. The results of this study suggest that a combination of MEDLINE and handsearching is required to identify adequately reports of randomized trials. © Crown copyright 2002. Reproduced with the permission of Her Majesty's Stationery Office. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/sim.1191

Cites

11 of 11 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Electronic handsearching risks overlooking otherwise unpublished studies reported in non-indexed conference abstracts and journal supplements.

    “A potential limitation of electronic handsearching is that this approach, in contrast to handsearching print journals, risks overlooking otherwise unpublished studies reported in (non‐indexed) conference abstracts and journal supplements (Hopewell 2002).”

    From Tailored interventions to address determinants of practice (2015) · cites this paper as Hopewell 2002

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Hopewell, S., Clarke, M., Lusher, A., Lefebvre, C., & Westby, M.
Affiliations
Cochrane (GB)
Corresponding author
Hopewell, S.
ORCID
Venue
Statistics in Medicine
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2002-05-21
Volume
21
Issue
11
Pages
1625-1634
ISSN
  • 0277-6715 (ISSN-L)
  • 1097-0258
DOI
10.1002/sim.1191
OpenAlex
W2140915063
Cited by
116
References
11
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 4
FWCI
12.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
Locations
  • Statistics in Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • European Commission
  • U.S. National Library of Medicine
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › scientometrics and bibliometrics research
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information Retrieval and Search Behavior
Keywords
MEDLINE searching, randomized controlled trials, literature search strategies, bibliographic databases
MeSH terms
Periodicals as Topic, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, MEDLINE, Information Storage and Retrieval

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review