Preliminary comparison of the performance of the National Library of Medicine’s systematic review publication type and the sensitive clinical queries filter for systematic reviews in PubMed
Objective: The National Library of Medicine (NLM) inaugurated a “publication type” concept to facilitate searches for systematic reviews (SRs). On the other hand, clinical queries (CQs) are validated search strategies designed to retrieve scientifically sound, clinically relevant original and revie...
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
University Library System, University of Pittsburgh
2022-02-01
|
| Series: | Journal of the Medical Library Association |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://jmla.pitt.edu/ojs/jmla/article/view/1286 |
| _version_ | 1818296596839792640 |
|---|---|
| author | Tamara Navarro-Ruan R. Brian Haynes |
| author_facet | Tamara Navarro-Ruan R. Brian Haynes |
| author_sort | Tamara Navarro-Ruan |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description |
Objective: The National Library of Medicine (NLM) inaugurated a “publication type” concept to facilitate searches for systematic reviews (SRs). On the other hand, clinical queries (CQs) are validated search strategies designed to retrieve scientifically sound, clinically relevant original and review articles from biomedical literature databases. We compared the retrieval performance of the SR publication type (SR[pt]) against the most sensitive CQ for systematic review articles (CQrs) in PubMed.
Methods: We ran date-limited searches of SR[pt] and CQrs to compare the relative yield of articles and SRs, focusing on the differences in retrieval of SRs by SR[pt] but not CQrs (SR[pt] NOT CQrs) and CQrs NOT SR[pt]. Random samples of articles retrieved in each of these comparisons were examined for SRs until a consistent pattern became evident.
Results: For SR[pt] NOT CQrs, the yield was relatively low in quantity but rich in quality, with 79% of the articles being SRs. For CQrs NOT SR[pt], the yield was high in quantity but low in quality, with only 8% being SRs. For CQrs AND SR[pt], the quality was highest, with 92% being SRs.
Conclusions: We found that SR[pt] had high precision and specificity for SRs but low recall (sensitivity), whereas CQrs had much higher recall. SR[pt] OR CQrs added valid SRs to the CQrs yield at low cost (i.e., added few non-SRs). For searches that are intended to be exhaustive for SRs, SR[pt] can be added to existing sensitive search filters.
|
| first_indexed | 2024-12-13T04:06:03Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-3af9bb3a67634ecd86b96072dfaa0f7d |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1536-5050 1558-9439 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-13T04:06:03Z |
| publishDate | 2022-02-01 |
| publisher | University Library System, University of Pittsburgh |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Journal of the Medical Library Association |
| spelling | doaj.art-3af9bb3a67634ecd86b96072dfaa0f7d2022-12-22T00:00:12ZengUniversity Library System, University of PittsburghJournal of the Medical Library Association1536-50501558-94392022-02-01110110.5195/jmla.2022.1286Preliminary comparison of the performance of the National Library of Medicine’s systematic review publication type and the sensitive clinical queries filter for systematic reviews in PubMedTamara Navarro-Ruan0R. Brian Haynes1Research Coordinator, Health Information Research Unit, Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, CanadaProfessor Emeritus, Health Information Research Unit, Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada Objective: The National Library of Medicine (NLM) inaugurated a “publication type” concept to facilitate searches for systematic reviews (SRs). On the other hand, clinical queries (CQs) are validated search strategies designed to retrieve scientifically sound, clinically relevant original and review articles from biomedical literature databases. We compared the retrieval performance of the SR publication type (SR[pt]) against the most sensitive CQ for systematic review articles (CQrs) in PubMed. Methods: We ran date-limited searches of SR[pt] and CQrs to compare the relative yield of articles and SRs, focusing on the differences in retrieval of SRs by SR[pt] but not CQrs (SR[pt] NOT CQrs) and CQrs NOT SR[pt]. Random samples of articles retrieved in each of these comparisons were examined for SRs until a consistent pattern became evident. Results: For SR[pt] NOT CQrs, the yield was relatively low in quantity but rich in quality, with 79% of the articles being SRs. For CQrs NOT SR[pt], the yield was high in quantity but low in quality, with only 8% being SRs. For CQrs AND SR[pt], the quality was highest, with 92% being SRs. Conclusions: We found that SR[pt] had high precision and specificity for SRs but low recall (sensitivity), whereas CQrs had much higher recall. SR[pt] OR CQrs added valid SRs to the CQrs yield at low cost (i.e., added few non-SRs). For searches that are intended to be exhaustive for SRs, SR[pt] can be added to existing sensitive search filters. https://jmla.pitt.edu/ojs/jmla/article/view/1286information retrievalevidence-based medicinesystematic reviews |
| spellingShingle | Tamara Navarro-Ruan R. Brian Haynes Preliminary comparison of the performance of the National Library of Medicine’s systematic review publication type and the sensitive clinical queries filter for systematic reviews in PubMed Journal of the Medical Library Association information retrieval evidence-based medicine systematic reviews |
| title | Preliminary comparison of the performance of the National Library of Medicine’s systematic review publication type and the sensitive clinical queries filter for systematic reviews in PubMed |
| title_full | Preliminary comparison of the performance of the National Library of Medicine’s systematic review publication type and the sensitive clinical queries filter for systematic reviews in PubMed |
| title_fullStr | Preliminary comparison of the performance of the National Library of Medicine’s systematic review publication type and the sensitive clinical queries filter for systematic reviews in PubMed |
| title_full_unstemmed | Preliminary comparison of the performance of the National Library of Medicine’s systematic review publication type and the sensitive clinical queries filter for systematic reviews in PubMed |
| title_short | Preliminary comparison of the performance of the National Library of Medicine’s systematic review publication type and the sensitive clinical queries filter for systematic reviews in PubMed |
| title_sort | preliminary comparison of the performance of the national library of medicine s systematic review publication type and the sensitive clinical queries filter for systematic reviews in pubmed |
| topic | information retrieval evidence-based medicine systematic reviews |
| url | https://jmla.pitt.edu/ojs/jmla/article/view/1286 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT tamaranavarroruan preliminarycomparisonoftheperformanceofthenationallibraryofmedicinessystematicreviewpublicationtypeandthesensitiveclinicalqueriesfilterforsystematicreviewsinpubmed AT rbrianhaynes preliminarycomparisonoftheperformanceofthenationallibraryofmedicinessystematicreviewpublicationtypeandthesensitiveclinicalqueriesfilterforsystematicreviewsinpubmed |