Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Poster Validation of child search filters for Pubmed-18th Cochrane Colloquium
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Introducing the official SlideShare app

Stunning, full-screen experience for iPhone and Android

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

Poster Validation of child search filters for Pubmed-18th Cochrane Colloquium

871
views

Published on

Nominated for the Thomas C Chalmers Award

Nominated for the Thomas C Chalmers Award

Published in: Health & Medicine, Business

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
871
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. 1. Kastner M, Wilczynski NL, Walker-Dilks C, McKibbon KA, Haynes B. Age-specific search strategies for Medline J Med Internet Res. 2006 Oct 25;8(4):e25 For more information, please contact Edith Leclercq: e.leclercq@amc.uva.nl Validation of a PubMed search filter for identifying studies including children Edith Leclercq1, Mariska MG Leeflang2, Elvira C van Dalen¹, Leontien CM Kremer¹ ¹Cochrane Childhood Cancer Group, Department of Paediatric Oncology, Emma Children's Hospital (EKZ) / Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam (AMC), the Netherlands; ²Dutch Cochrane Center, Academic Medical Centre, Amsterdam, the Netherlands For physicians and other medical professionals, it is important to find relevant information on their field of interest. Various search filters, especially for identifying clinical trials and systematic reviews, have been developed. The aim of this study was to develop a PubMed search filter for identifying studies including children for the Cochrane Childhood Cancer Group (CCG), and to validate this search filter. The CCG search filter has been developed by identifying keywords and MeSH headings from relevant publications and by discussions with experts in the field. We validated the search filter by calculating the sensitivity and precision, and compared these results with six other known search filters for children (PubMed Limit All Child, three by Kastner et al. (ref.1), Child Health Field (CHF), and BestBets). A new Gold Standard was developed by collecting all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) reported in Cochrane intervention reviews that included children (1951–2008). This Gold Standard was stored in PubMed. Sensitivity was calculated by the number of retrieved relevant RCTs and CCTs divided by the Gold Standard set of relevant studies. The precision of the 7 filters was calculated as Number Needed to Read (NNR) in a set of records focussed on children obtained from PubMed in September 2008. All records were assessed by two authors individually to determine whether a study included children or not. In case of disagreement a third author was consulted. The five child search filters from CCG, CHF, BestBets, Kastner1 (filter for 'best sensitivity') and PubMed showed a high sensitivity to detect studies including children. Two of the three child search filters from Kastner et al. (Kastner2, Kastner3) performed less well in PubMed (Table 1). The NNR was calculated for all child filters and varied from 1.06 (Kastner3) to 1.52 (CCG) (Table 2). Two Kastner filters (Kastner2, Kastner3), seem to be very efficient (NNR 1.07 and 1.06 respectively). However, they do miss the highest number of relevant studies (173 and 230 respectively of the 416 relevant records) (Table 2). False positive records with the CCG search filter were obtained amongst others with the search terms boy* and school*. Abbreviations: GS= Gold Standard; CCG=Childhood Cancer Group; CHF=Child Health Field; NNR=Number Needed to Read; Kastner1= search filter for best sensitivity; Kastner2=search filter for best specificity; Kastner3=search filter for best optimization of sensitivity and specificity; n.a.=not applicable Table 1. Sensitivity of child search filters in PubMed Table 2. NNR of child search filters in PubMed Background Conclusions Methods Results All search filters for identifying studies including children performed rather similar, except for two search filters developed by Kastner et al (Kastner2, Kastner3), which performed less well. Based on the results of this study recommendations can be made for the improvement of the CCG child filter. Retrieved references Paediatric search filter Total Relevant Missed NNR CCG 628 413 3 1.52 CHF 593 414 2 1.43 BestBets 611 413 3 1.48 Kastner1 526 394 22 1.34 Kastner2 261 243 173 1.07 Kastner3 198 186 230 1.06 PubMed limit All Child: 0-18 years 514 392 24 1.31 Search filter Number of hits Sensitivity (%) 95% CI GS 1357 n.a. n.a. CCG + GS 1332 98.16 0.97-0.99 CHF + GS 1331 98.08 0.97-0.99 Best Bets + GS 1333 98.23 0.97-0.99 Kastner1 + GS 1324 97.57 0.97-0.98 Kastner2 + GS 629 46.35 0.44-0.49 Kastner3 + GS 735 54.16 0.51-0.57 PubMed limit All Child: 0- 18 years + GS 1320 97.27 0.96-0.98