Cited by 59Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsInformation Retrieval and Search Behaviorscientometrics and bibliometrics research

Identifying observational studies of surgical interventions in MEDLINE and EMBASE

Open access
Fraser, Cynthia, Murray, Alison, Burr, Jennifer·2006·BMC Medical Research Methodology

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Health technology assessments of surgical interventions frequently require the inclusion of non-randomised evidence. Literature search strategies employed to identify this evidence often exclude a methodological component because of uncertainty surrounding the use of appropriate search terms. This can result in the retrieval of a large number of irrelevant records. Methodological filters would help to minimise this, making literature searching more efficient. METHODS: An objective approach was employed to develop MEDLINE and EMBASE filters, using a reference standard derived from screening the results of an electronic literature search that contained only subject-related terms. Candidate terms for MEDLINE (N = 37) and EMBASE (N = 35) were derived from examination of the records of the reference standard. The filters were validated on two sets of studies that had been included in previous health technology assessments. RESULTS: The final filters were highly sensitive (MEDLINE 99.5%, EMBASE 100%, MEDLINE/EMBASE combined 100%) with precision ranging between 16.7%-21.1%, specificity 35.3%-43.5%, and a reduction in retrievals of over 30%. Against the validation standards, the individual filters retrieved 85.2%-100% of records. In combination, however, the MEDLINE and EMBASE filters retrieved 100% against both validation standards with a reduction in retrieved records of 28.4% and 30.1% CONCLUSION: The MEDLINE and EMBASE filters were highly sensitive and substantially reduced the number of records retrieved, indicating that they are useful tools for efficient literature searching.

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 · 10.1186/1471-2288-6-41

Cites

19 of 19 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?

  • 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].”

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Fraser, C., Murray, A., & Burr, J.
Affiliations
University of Aberdeen (GB)
Corresponding author
Fraser, Cynthia
Venue
BMC Medical Research Methodology
Published
2006-08-18
Volume
6
Issue
1
Pages
41-41
ISSN
1471-2288 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2126648016
Cited by
58
References
19
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 6 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 4
FWCI
1.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMC Medical Research Methodology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Aberdeen University Research Archive (Aberdeen University) (submittedVersion)
  • St Andrews Research Repository (St Andrews Research Repository) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
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
observational studies, surgical treatment, health technology assessment, MEDLINE, Embase, search strategy development, search sensitivity and specificity
MeSH terms
Efficiency, Humans, Quality Control, Sensitivity and Specificity, Surgical Procedures, Operative, Technology Assessment, Biomedical, Databases, Bibliographic, MEDLINE, Information Storage and Retrieval, Evidence-Based Medicine

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