Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 601

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Improving the translation of search strategies using the Polyglot Search Translator: a randomized controlled trial

Open access
Clark, Justin Michael, Sanders, Sharon, Carter, Matthew, Honeyman, David, Cleo, Gina, Auld, Yvonne, Booth, Debbie, Condron, Patrick, Dalais, Christine, Bateup, Sarah, Linthwaite, Bronwyn, May, Nikki, Munn, Jo, Ramsay, Lindy, Rickett, Kirsty, Rutter, Cameron, Smith, Angela, Sondergeld, Peter, Wallin, Margie, Jones, Mark, Beller, Elaine·2020·Journal of the Medical Library Association

Abstract

Background: Searching for studies to include in a systematic review (SR) is a time- and labor-intensive process with searches of multiple databases recommended. To reduce the time spent translating search strings across databases, a tool called the Polyglot Search Translator (PST) was developed. The authors evaluated whether using the PST as a search translation aid reduces the time required to translate search strings without increasing errors.Methods: In a randomized trial, twenty participants were randomly allocated ten database search strings and then randomly assigned to translate five with the assistance of the PST (PST-A method) and five without the assistance of the PST (manual method). We compared the time taken to translate search strings, the number of errors made, and how close the number of references retrieved by a translated search was to the number retrieved by a reference standard translation.Results: Sixteen participants performed 174 translations using the PST-A method and 192 translations using the manual method. The mean time taken to translate a search string with the PST-A method was 31 minutes versus 45 minutes by the manual method (mean difference: 14 minutes). The mean number of errors made per translation by the PST-A method was 8.6 versus 14.6 by the manual method. Large variation in the number of references retrieved makes results for this outcome unreliable, although the number of references retrieved by the PST-A method was closer to the reference standard translation than the manual method.Conclusion: When used to assist with translating search strings across databases, the PST can increase the speed of translation without increasing errors. Errors in search translations can still be a problem, and search specialists should be aware of this.

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 · 10.5195/jmla.2020.834

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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

Cites

Cited by

See all 601

Metadata

Authors
Clark, J. M., Sanders, S., Carter, M., Honeyman, D., Cleo, G., Auld, Y., Booth, D., Condron, P., Dalais, C., Bateup, S., Linthwaite, B., May, N., Munn, J., Ramsay, L., Rickett, K., Rutter, C., Smith, A., Sondergeld, P., Wallin, M., Jones, M., & Beller, E.
Venue
Journal of the Medical Library Association
Published
2020-04-01
Volume
108
Issue
2
Pages
195-207
ISSN
  • 1536-5050 (ISSN-L)
  • 1558-9439
OpenAlex
W3014565015
Cited by
601
References
5
FWCI
31.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
diamond

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.