Cited by 54Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsInformation Retrieval and Search BehaviorMethodologies in Health Research and Practice

Limited search strategies were effective in finding relevant nonrandomized studies

Furlan, Andrea D., Irvin, Emma, Bombardier, Claire·2006·Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Abstract

Background and objective Searching for nonrandomized studies in electronic databases is complicated because there is a variety of study designs and lack of standardization in the terminology. The purpose of this study was to develop and evaluate a method to limit search strategies according to study design of comparative nonrandomized studies (cNRSs).Methods Four updated Cochrane systematic reviews that included nonrandomized studies (cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies) of the effects of health care interventions were selected. Search strategies limited to study design were devised for each one of these topic areas in two electronic databases (MEDLINE and EMBASE). A progressive method (PM) and a fixed method for selecting the most appropriate search terms associated with study design of nonrandomized studies are suggested.Results The results showed that the sensitivity of search strategies (in two databases combined) limited to study design were between 90% and 100% for the PM using both controlled vocabulary (CV) and textwords (TWs) and between 95% and 100% for a fixed set of controlled vocabulary and TWs.Conclusions It is possible and acceptable to use search strategies limited to study design of cNRSs of health care interventions.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.03.004

Cites

16 of 16 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?

  • About one third of the articles acknowledged that searching for observational studies requires additional time and resources because of lack of specific search filters and poorly established or inconsistently used indexing terms.

    “About one third of the articles acknowledged that searching for observational studies requires additional time and resources because of lack of specific search filters and poorly established or inconsistently used indexing terms [38, 39, 47, 49, 56, 58, 59, 64, 65].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Furlan, A. D., Irvin, E., & Bombardier, C.
Affiliations
  • University of Toronto (CA)
  • Institute for Work & Health (CA)
Corresponding author
Furlan, Andrea D.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2006-12
Volume
59
Issue
12
Pages
1303-1311
ISSN
0895-4356 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2048634900
Cited by
54
References
16
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 4
FWCI
0.76
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical Epidemiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information Retrieval and Search Behavior
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Methodologies in Health Research and Practice
Keywords
search strategy development, non-randomized studies, electronic database searching, MEDLINE, Embase, controlled vocabulary, cohort studies, case-control study, cross-sectional study, health interventions
MeSH terms
Research Design, Epidemiologic Studies, Databases, Bibliographic, MEDLINE, Information Storage and Retrieval, Vocabulary, Controlled, Medical Subject Headings

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