The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Optimal search strategies for retrieving scientifically strong studies of treatment from Medline: analytical survey
Open accessAbstract
Abstract Objective To develop and test optimal Medline search strategies for retrieving sound clinical studies on prevention or treatment of health disorders. Design Analytical survey. Data sources 161 clinical journals indexed in Medline for the year 2000. Main outcome measures Sensitivity, specificity, precision, and accuracy of 4862 unique terms in 18 404 combinations. Results Only 1587 (24.2%) of 6568 articles on treatment met criteria for testing clinical interventions. Combinations of search terms reached peak sensitivities of 99.3% (95% confidence interval 98.7% to 99.8%) at a specificity of 70.4% (69.8% to 70.9%). Compared with best single terms, best multiple terms increased sensitivity for sound studies by 4.1% (absolute increase), but with substantial loss of specificity (absolute difference 23.7%) when sensitivity was maximised. When terms were combined to maximise specificity, 97.4% (97.3% to 97.6%) was achieved, about the same as that achieved by the best single term (97.6%, 97.4% to 97.7%). The strategies newly reported in this paper outperformed other validated search strategies except for two strategies that had slightly higher specificity (98.1% and 97.6% v 97.4%) but lower sensitivity (42.0% and 92.8% v 93.1%). Conclusion New empirical search strategies have been validated to optimise retrieval from Medline of articles reporting high quality clinical studies on prevention or treatment of health disorders.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Hochberg, M. C., Altman, R. D., April, K. T., Benkhalti, M., Guyatt, G., McGowan, J., Towheed, T., Welch, V., Wells, G., & Tugwell, P. (2012) · Arthritis Care & Research · doi:10.1002/acr.21596 · Cited by 3,068
Faller, H., Schuler, M., Richard, M., Heckl, U., Weis, J., & Küffner, R. (2013) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.2011.40.8922 · Cited by 912
Terwee, C. B., Jansma, E. P., Riphagen, I. I., & de Vet, H. C. W. (2009) · Quality of Life Research · doi:10.1007/s11136-009-9528-5 · Cited by 849
Sud, S., Friedrich, J. O., Taccone, P., Polli, F., Adhikari, N. K. J., Latini, R., Pesenti, A., Guérin, C., Mancebo, J., Curley, M. A. Q., et al. (2010) · Intensive Care Medicine · doi:10.1007/s00134-009-1748-1 · Cited by 563
Does monitoring goal progress promote goal attainment? A meta-analysis of the experimental evidence.
Harkin, B., Webb, T. L., Chang, B. P. I., Prestwich, A., Conner, M., Kellar, I., Benn, Y., & Sheeran, P. (2016) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/bul0000025 · Cited by 564
Metadata
- Authors
- Haynes, R. B., McKibbon, K. A., Wilczynski, N. L., Walter, S. D., & Werre, S. R.
- Venue
- BMJ
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2005-05-13
- Volume
- 330
- Issue
- 7501
- Pages
- 1179
- ISSN
- 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
- 0959-8138
- 1468-5833
- OpenAlex
- W4229668175
- Cited by
- 439
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 30.60
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Optimal search strategies for retrieving scientifically strong studies of treatment from Medline: analytical survey. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj.38446.498542.8f
- The paper
- Haynes, R. B., McKibbon, K. A., Wilczynski, N. L., Walter, S. D., & Werre, S. R. (2005). Optimal search strategies for retrieving scientifically strong studies of treatment from Medline: analytical survey. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.38446.498542.8f
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.