Cited by 350Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsStatistical Methods in EpidemiologyHealth Sciences Research and Education

Search Filters for Finding Prognostic and Diagnostic Prediction Studies in Medline to Enhance Systematic Reviews

Open access
Geersing, Geert-Jan, Bouwmeester, Walter, Zuithoff, Peter, Spijker, Rene, Leeflang, Mariska, Moons, Karel·2012·PLoS ONE

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The interest in prognostic reviews is increasing, but to properly review existing evidence an accurate search filer for finding prediction research is needed. The aim of this paper was to validate and update two previously introduced search filters for finding prediction research in Medline: the Ingui filter and the Haynes Broad filter. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Based on a hand search of 6 general journals in 2008 we constructed two sets of papers. Set 1 consisted of prediction research papers (n = 71), and set 2 consisted of the remaining papers (n = 1133). Both search filters were validated in two ways, using diagnostic accuracy measures as performance measures. First, we compared studies in set 1 (reference) with studies retrieved by the search strategies as applied in Medline. Second, we compared studies from 4 published systematic reviews (reference) with studies retrieved by the search filter as applied in Medline. Next--using word frequency methods--we constructed an additional search string for finding prediction research. Both search filters were good in identifying clinical prediction models: sensitivity ranged from 0.94 to 1.0 using our hand search as reference, and 0.78 to 0.89 using the systematic reviews as reference. This latter performance measure even increased to around 0.95 (range 0.90 to 0.97) when either search filter was combined with the additional string that we developed. Retrieval rate of explorative prediction research was poor, both using our hand search or our systematic review as reference, and even combined with our additional search string: sensitivity ranged from 0.44 to 0.85. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Explorative prediction research is difficult to find in Medline, using any of the currently available search filters. Yet, application of either the Ingui filter or the Haynes broad filter results in a very low number missed clinical prediction model studies.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pone.0032844

Cites

45 of 45 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?

  • Previous guidance for systematic reviews of prediction model studies mainly addressed review aim, searching, critical appraisal, and data extraction, with little guidance on quantitative synthesis of external validation results.

    “Previous guidance for systematic reviews of prediction model studies mainly addressed formulation of the review aim, searching,12 critical appraisal (CHARMS)13 and data extraction of relevant studies. There is, however, little guidance on how to quantitatively synthesize the results of external validation studies.”

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: 1

  1. [37]Frantzi K Ananiadou S Mima H 2000 Automatic recognition of multi-word terms. International Journal of Digital Libraries 3 2 117 132

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Geersing, G.-J., Bouwmeester, W., Zuithoff, P., Spijker, R., Leeflang, M., & Moons, K.
Affiliations
  • University Medical Center Utrecht (NL)
  • Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam (NL)
Corresponding author
Geersing, Geert-Jan
Venue
PLoS ONE
Published
2012-02-29
Volume
7
Issue
2
Pages
e32844
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2019982728
Cited by
350
References
45
Citations by year
2026: 20 · 2025: 26 · 2024: 39 · 2023: 39 · 2022: 47 · 2021: 47 · 2020: 32 · 2019: 23 · 2018: 24 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 2
FWCI
2.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (publishedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Sciences Research and Education
Keywords
search filters, MEDLINE, prognostic research, diagnostic research, clinical prediction model, systematic reviews, search strategy validation
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Computers, Humans, Prognosis, ROC Curve, Software, Reproducibility of Results, Multivariate Analysis, Databases, Factual, MEDLINE, Computational Biology, Biomedical Research

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