Cited by 833Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsInformation Retrieval and Search Behaviorscientometrics and bibliometrics research

Development of a highly sensitive search strategy for the retrieval of reports of controlled trials using PubMed

Robinson, Karen A, Dickersin, Kay·2002·International Journal of Epidemiology

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To develop, through revision of the Cochrane Collaboration search strategy for OVID-MEDLINE, a highly sensitive search strategy to retrieve reports of controlled trials using PubMed. METHODS: The original highly sensitive Cochrane strategy was revised to take into account additional Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) and other terminology as well as the current unique features of PubMed. We compared the retrieval of the revised strategy with that of the original Cochrane strategy before and after translation of the strategies into PubMed format. Finally, we used a gold standard database of reports of controlled trials identified by electronic and hand search of selected journals to test the revised strategy in PubMed format. RESULTS: The revised strategy included a search statement modified for increased precision, and added 'Cross-over Studies' as a MeSH term and the term 'latin square' as a text word. Compared to the original Cochrane strategy, the revised strategy identified 53 additional reports of controlled trials accessing MEDLINE through OVID. When the revised strategy and original Cochrane strategy were translated into PubMed format, the revised strategy retrieved 90 reports of controlled trials not identified by the original strategy. Finally, the revised strategy in PubMed format retrieved all of the reports of controlled trials in the gold standard database. Ninety-eight per cent of the gold standard reports of controlled trials were retrieved by Phase 1 of the optimal PubMed search strategy. CONCLUSIONS: Failure to identify all relevant trials for systematic review could result in bias. We developed a highly sensitive search strategy for the retrieval of reports of controlled trials for use with PubMed that retrieves more relevant citations (greater sensitivity) and fewer non-relevant citations (greater precision) than the original Cochrane search strategy.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/ije/31.1.150

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Robinson KA, Hinegardner PG, Lansing P. Development of an optimal search strategy for the retrieval of controlled trials using PubMed [abstract]. Proceedings of the 6th International Cochrane Colloquium; 1998 Oct 22-26. Abstr Workshops Sci Sess Int Cochrane Coll 1998;6:85.
  2. Friedman DS, Bass EB, Lubomski LH et al. Synthesis of the literature on the effectiveness of regional anesthesia for cataract surgery. Ophthalmology 2001;108:519-29.
  3. Friedman DS, Bass EB, Lubomski LH et al. The methodologic quality of clinical trials on regional anesthesia for cataract surgery. Ophthalmology 2001;108:530-41.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Robinson, K. A., & Dickersin, K.
Affiliations
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
  • Brown University (US)
Corresponding author
Robinson, Karen A
Venue
International Journal of Epidemiology
Published
2002-02
Volume
31
Issue
1
Pages
150-153
ISSN
  • 0300-5771 (ISSN-L)
  • 1464-3685
OpenAlex
W2159865972
Cited by
833
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 30 · 2018: 25 · 2017: 34 · 2016: 31 · 2015: 36 · 2014: 33 · 2013: 42 · 2012: 33
FWCI
75.99
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • International Journal of 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
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › scientometrics and bibliometrics research
Keywords
search strategies, PubMed, MEDLINE, mesh, sensitivity, precision, systematic reviews, cross-over study, Latin squares, citation retrieval
MeSH terms
Bias, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, MEDLINE, Controlled Clinical Trials as Topic

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