IJE Advance Access originally published online on January 19, 2005
International Journal of Epidemiology 2005 34(1):224-225; doi:10.1093/ije/dyh311
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IJE vol.34 no.1 © International Epidemiological Association 2005; all rights reserved.
Letters to the Editor |
A simple hint to improve Robinson and Dickersin's highly sensitive PubMed search strategy for controlled clinical trials
1 Invasive Cardiology, San Raffaele Hospital, and EMO Centro Cuore Columbus, Milan, Italy
2 Institute of Cardiology, University of Verona, Verona, Italy
3 Department of Medicine, Virginia Commonwealth University, Medical College of Virginia Campus, Richmond, VA, USA
4 Institute of Cardiology, Catholic University, Rome, Italy
Correspondence: Dr Giuseppe Biondi Zoccai, Invasive Cardiology, San Raffaele Hospital, via Olgettina 60, 20132 Milan, Italy. E-mail: gbiondizoccai{at}tiscali.it
Systematic literature searches are of paramount importance for investigators involved in clinical research as well as for those overviewing clinical evidence.1 While several electronic databases are available to search for controlled clinical studies, PubMed, the online version of the US National Library of Medicine MEDLINE database, is probably one of the most complete and user-friendly.2 Nonetheless, significant expertise is needed to tackle the vast amount of information available in PubMed. Among other useful tools, explicit search strategies using Boolean operators, Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) terms and keywords have been proposed to improve the sensitivity and specificity of PubMed searches for clinical trials.3 One of the most sensitive as well as specific of such systematic search algorithms is the strategy originally proposed by Robinson and Dickersin in 2002, which has been adopted by several Cochrane Collaboration reviewers.4 However, even this well-tested strategy may lack optimal specificity, as many initially retrieved citations, often in the order of hundreds, eventually end up being non-pertinent or duplicate hits. Unfortunately, it is well known that the number of initial reports is one of the key factors determining length, complexity, and economic burden of a systematic review. Moreover, readers and reviewers of biomedical literature always hope to reduce the number-needed-to-read in order to pursue their scholarly projects or continuing medical education.5
Our aim was to devise a few simple ameliorations to the Robinson and Dickersin's highly sensitive PubMed search strategy for controlled trials. We thus simply excluded non-controlled and non-experimental studies, such as reviews, commentaries, practice guidelines, meta-analyses and editorials from the potential citations of interest, by using the ‘NOT’ Boolean operator. Letters or journal correspondence were instead considered as potential sources of randomized trial data and thus not explicitly excluded.4 Actually, we simply added to Robinson and Dickersin's string the following: ‘NOT (comment[pt] OR editorial[pt] OR meta-analysis[pt] OR practice-guideline[pt] OR review[pt])’. The modified search strategy is thus the following (additions are in italics):
(randomized controlled trial [pt] OR controlled clinical trial [pt] OR randomized controlled trials [mh] OR random allocation [mh] OR double-blind method [mh] OR single-blind method [mh] OR clinical trial [pt] OR clinical trials [mh] OR (‘clinical trial’ [tw] OR ((singl* [tw] OR doubl* [tw] OR trebl* [tw] OR tripl* [tw]) AND (mask* [tw] OR blind [tw])) OR (‘latin square’ [tw]) OR placebos [mh] OR placebo* [tw] OR random* [tw] OR research design [mh:noexp] OR comparative study [mh] OR evaluation studies [mh] OR follow-up studies [mh] OR prospective studies [mh] OR cross-over studies [mh] OR control* [tw] OR prospectiv* [tw] OR volunteer* [tw]) NOT (animal [mh] NOT human [mh]) NOT (comment[pt] OR editorial[pt] OR meta-analysis[pt] OR practice-guideline[pt] OR review[pt])).
In order to test the performance of this simple modification of the Robinson and Dickersin's algorithm, we compared the standard Robinson and Dickersin's PubMed search strategy versus the modified algorithm hereby proposed in a pool of five systematic reviews already completed by our group.6–10 The median number (25–75% range) of initial citations was significantly lower using the modified search in comparison to Robinson and Dickersin's standard PubMed algorithm, respectively 354 (55–1653) versus 393 (87–2041) (P = 0.043 at non-parametric Wilcoxon test). This translates into a median 19% (14–37) reduction in the number of initial citations. We also tested whether any pertinent trial, finally included in the meta-analyses published by our group, and originally retrieved by the standard Robinson and Dickersin's search strategy, was missed by our more stringent modified algorithm. Actually, no pertinent study was excluded, implying unimpaired sensitivity.
In conclusion, we believe that a minor modification to the well-established Robinson and Dickersin's PubMed search strategy for clinical trials may significantly increase search specificity without any reduction in sensitivity.
 |
Acknowledgments |
|---|
The present study is part of an ongoing training project of the Center for Overview, Meta-analysis, and Evidence-based medicine Training (COMET), based in Milan, Italy.
|
References |
|---|
 Top References |
|---|
1 Dickersin K, Scherer R, Lefebvre C. Identifying relevant studies for systematic reviews. BMJ 1994;309:1286–91.
2 Guyatt G, Rennie D (eds). Users' Guide to the Medical Literature: a Manual for Evidence-based Clinical Practice. 1st Edn. Chicago, IL: AMA Press, 2002.
3 Jadad AR, McQuay HJ. A high-yield strategy to identify randomized controlled trials for systematic reviews. Online J Curr Clin Trials 1993;Doc No 33.
4 Robinson KA, Dickersin K. Development of a highly sensitive search strategy for the retrieval of reports of controlled trials using PubMed. Int J Epidemiol 2002;31:150–53.
5 Bachmann LM, Coray R, Estermann P, Ter Riet G. Identifying diagnostic studies in MEDLINE: reducing the number needed to read. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2002;9:653–58.
6 Burzotta F, Trani C, Prati F et al. Comparison of outcomes (early and six-month) of direct stenting with conventional stenting (a meta-analysis of ten randomized trials). Am J Cardiol 2003;91:790–96.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
7 Biondi-Zoccai GGL, Abbate A, Agostoni P et al. Stenting versus surgical bypass grafting for coronary artery disease: systematic overview and meta-analysis of randomized trials. Ital Heart J 2003;4:271–80.[Medline]
8 Biondi-Zoccai GGL, Abbate A, Agostoni P et al. Early invasive versus conservative strategies for the management of non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes: systematic review of randomized trials. Ital Heart J 2003;4(Suppl.):45S.
9 Biondi-Zoccai GGL, Abbate A, Parisi Q et al. Is vasopressin superior to adrenaline or placebo in the management of cardiac arrest? A meta-analysis. Resuscitation 2003;59:221–24.[Medline]
10 Biondi-Zoccai GGL, Agostoni P, Testa L et al. Increased mortality after coronary stenting in patients treated with clopidogrel without loading dose. Evidence from a meta-analysis. Minerva Cardioangiol 2004;52:195–208.[Medline]
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  F. Burzotta, M. De Vita, Y. L. Gu, T. Isshiki, T. Lefevre, A. Kaltoft, D. Dudek, G. Sardella, P. S. Orrego, D. Antoniucci, et al. Clinical impact of thrombectomy in acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction: an individual patient-data pooled analysis of 11 trials Eur. Heart J., September 2, 2009; (2009) ehp348v1. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 L. Testa, W.J. Van Gaal, G.G.L. Biondi Zoccai, P. Agostoni, R.A. Latini, F. Bedogni, I. Porto, and A.P. Banning Myocardial infarction after percutaneous coronary intervention: a meta-analysis of troponin elevation applying the new universal definition QJM, June 1, 2009; 102(6): 369 - 378. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. Ranucci, A. Balduini, A. Ditta, A. Boncilli, and S. Brozzi A Systematic Review of Biocompatible Cardiopulmonary Bypass Circuits and Clinical Outcome Ann. Thorac. Surg., April 1, 2009; 87(4): 1311 - 1319. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 L. Testa, W.J. Van Gaal, R. Bhindi, G.G.L. Biondi-Zoccai, A. Abbate, P. Agostoni, I. Porto, F. Andreotti, F. Crea, and A.P. Banning Pexelizumab in ischemic heart disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis on 15,196 patients. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., October 1, 2008; 136(4): 884 - 893. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. Testa, W.J. van Gaal, G.G.L. Biondi-Zoccai, A. Abbate, P. Agostoni, R. Bhindi, and A.P. Banning Repeat thrombolysis or conservative therapy vs. rescue percutaneous coronary intervention for failed thrombolysis: systematic review and meta-analysis QJM, May 1, 2008; 101(5): 387 - 395. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. Ranucci, G. Isgro, G. Soro, D. Conti, and B. De Toffol Efficacy and Safety of Recombinant Activated Factor VII in Major Surgical Procedures: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials Arch Surg, March 1, 2008; 143(3): 296 - 304. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
F. Andreotti, L. Testa, G. G.L. Biondi-Zoccai, and F. Crea Aspirin plus warfarin compared to aspirin alone after acute coronary syndromes: an updated and comprehensive meta-analysis of 25 307 patients Eur. Heart J., March 1, 2006; 27(5): 519 - 526. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 K. A Robinson Authors' response Int. J. Epidemiol., February 1, 2005; 34(1): 225 - 225. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||