Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 765

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Developing Optimal Search Strategies for Detecting Clinically Sound Studies in MEDLINE

Open access
Haynes, R. B., Wilczynski, N., McKibbon, K. A., Walker, C. J., Sinclair, J. C.·1994·Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
DOI 10.1136/jamia.1994.95153434
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To develop optimal MEDLINE search strategies for retrieving sound clinical studies of the etiology, prognosis, diagnosis, prevention, or treatment of disorders in adult general medicine. DESIGN: Analytic survey of operating characteristics of search strategies developed by computerized combinations of terms selected to detect studies meeting basic methodologic criteria for direct clinical use in adult general medicine. MEASURES: The sensitivities, specificities, precision, and accuracy of 134,264 unique combinations of search terms were determined by comparison with a manual review of all articles (the "gold standard") in ten internal medicine and general medicine journals for 1986 and 1991. RESULTS: Less than half of the studies of the topics of interest met basic criteria for scientific merit for testing clinical applications. Combinations of search terms reached peak sensitivities of 82% for sound studies of etiology, 92% for prognosis, 92% for diagnosis, and 99% for therapy in 1991. Compared with the best single terms, multiple terms increased sensitivity for sound studies by over 30% (absolute increase), but with some loss of specificity when sensitivity was maximized. For 1986, combinations reached peak sensitivities of 72% for etiology, 95% for prognosis, 86% for diagnosis, and 98% for therapy. When search terms were combined to maximize specificity, over 93% specificity was achieved for all purpose categories in both years. Compared with individual terms, combined terms achieved near-perfect specificity that was maintained with modest increases in sensitivity in all purpose categories except therapy. Increases in accuracy were achieved by combining terms for all purpose categories, with peak accuracies reaching over 90% for therapy in 1986 and 1991. CONCLUSIONS: The retrieval of studies of important clinical topics cited in MEDLINE can be substantially enhanced by selected combinations of indexing terms and textwords.

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/jamia.1994.95153434

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.

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

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

Metadata

Authors
Haynes, R. B., Wilczynski, N., McKibbon, K. A., Walker, C. J., & Sinclair, J. C.
Venue
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
1994-11-01
Volume
1
Issue
6
Pages
447-458
ISSN
  • 1067-5027 (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-974X
DOI
10.1136/jamia.1994.95153434
OpenAlex
W1530232666
Cited by
765
References
0
FWCI
7.50
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

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.