Cited by 49Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsInformation Retrieval and Search Behaviorscientometrics and bibliometrics research

Topic search filters: a systematic scoping review

Open access
Damarell, Raechel A., May, Nikki, Hammond, Sue, Sladek, Ruth M., Tieman, Jennifer J.·2019·Health Information & Libraries Journal

Abstract

Background: Searching for topics within large biomedical databases can be challenging, especially when topics are complex, diffuse, emerging or lack definitional clarity. Experimentally derived topic search filters offer a reliable solution to effective retrieval; however, their number and range of subject foci remain unknown. Objectives: This systematic scoping review aims to identify and describe available experimentally developed topic search filters. Methods: Reports on topic search filter development (1990‐) were sought using grey literature sources and 15 databases. Reports describing the conception and prospective development of a database‐specific topic search and including an objectively measured estimate of its performance (‘sensitivity’) were included. Results: Fifty‐four reports met inclusion criteria. Data were extracted and thematically synthesised to describe the characteristics of 58 topic search filters. Discussion: Topic search filters are proliferating and cover a wide range of subjects. Filter reports, however, often lack clear definitions of concepts and topic scope to guide users. Without standardised terminology, filters are challenging to find. Information specialists may benefit from a centralised topic filter repository and appraisal checklists to facilitate quality assessment. Conclusion: Findings will help information specialists identify existing topic search filters and assist filter developers to build on current knowledge in the field.

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 · 10.1111/hir.12244

Cites

97 of 97 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?

  • Most published search filters are validated and/or peer reviewed.

    “This enables readers to assess the quality of the filter(s) used, as most published search filters are validated and/or peer reviewed [106, 107].”

    From PRISMA-S: an extension to the PRISMA Statement for Reporting Literature Searches in Systematic Reviews (2021) · cites this paper as [107]

    The Search filter performance section says filters are typically tested, and the Filter versions section says all filters included in the review were evaluated for retrieval performance. But the Types of studies section explicitly says validation was not an inclusion criterion, and the paper does not establish that most published search filters were externally validated or peer reviewed. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Filters are often objectively derived, tested, and validated, whereas most search strategies published as part of systematic review or other evidence synthesis are 'best guess,' relying on the expertise of the searcher and review team.

    “Filters are often objectively derived, tested, and validated, whereas most search strategies published as part of systematic review or other evidence synthesis are ' best guess, ' relying on the expertise of the searcher and review team [107].”

    From PRISMA-S: an extension to the PRISMA Statement for Reporting Literature Searches in Systematic Reviews (2021) · cites this paper as [107]

    The Search filter performance section calls everyday database searching a ‘best guess’ activity and contrasts it with experimentally developed filters whose performance can be estimated. The paper does not establish that most search strategies published in systematic reviews or other evidence syntheses are best guesses, or specifically attribute them to the expertise of a searcher and review team. Page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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: 4

  1. The InterTASC Information Specialists' Sub-Group Search Filter Resource. (2008). ISSG Search Filter Resource. J. M. Glanville, C. Lefebvre & K. Wright (Eds.), Available from https://sites.google.com/a/york.ac.uk/issg-search-filters-re source/home [last accessed 6 May 2018].
  2. Kirk, S., Damarell, R. A., Tieman, J. J., & Harvey, C. (2013, October). Contraception search filters: Connecting the sexual and reproductive health community to the evidence with one click. Poster session presented at the Australasian Sexual Health Conference, Darwin, Australia.
  3. Lefebvre, C., Manheimer, E., & Glanville, J. M. (2011). The Cochrane highly sensitive search strategies for identifying randomized trials in MEDLINE. In P. Higgins & S. Green (Eds.), Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions (Version 5.1.0). Available from: http://handb ook.cochrane.org/chapter_6/6_4_11_1_the_cochrane_highly_ sensitive_search_strategies_for.htm.
  4. Straus, S. E. (2011). Evidence-based medicine: How to practice and teach it, 4th ed.. Edinburgh, UK: Churchill Livingstone/ Elsevier.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Damarell, R. A., May, N., Hammond, S., Sladek, R. M., & Tieman, J. J.
Affiliations
  • Flinders University (AU)
  • Flinders Medical Centre (AU)
Corresponding author
Damarell, Raechel A.
Venue
Health Information & Libraries Journal
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2018-12-21
Volume
36
Issue
1
Pages
4-40
ISSN
  • 1471-1834 (ISSN-L)
  • 1471-1842
OpenAlex
W2906178244
Cited by
48
References
97
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 2
FWCI
0.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Health Information & Libraries Journal (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Flinders Academic Commons (Flinders University) (acceptedVersion)
Funders
Australian Library and Information Association
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
biomedical databases, database searching, search sensitivity, filter development, information retrieval, standardized terminology
MeSH terms
Humans, Information Services, Databases, Bibliographic, Information Storage and Retrieval, Search Engine

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