This appraisal is for Alberta Research Centre for Child Health Evidence, systematic reviews filter
This appraisal was prepared by Sue Bayliss
A. Information
A.1 State the author's objective
A.2 State the focus of the search
[x] Sensitivity-maximising
[ ] Precision-maximising
[ ] Specificity-maximising
[ ] Balance of sensitivity and specificity / precision
[ ] Other
Creation of a highly sensitive strategy for locating systematic reviews.
A.3. Database(s) and search interface(s).
MEDLINE (Ovid)
A.4.Describe the methodological focus of the filter (e.g. RCTs).
Systematic reviews
A.5 Describe any other topic that forms an additional focus of the filter (e.g. clinical topics such as breast cancer, geographic location such as Asia or population grouping such as paediatrics).
A.6 Other obervations
The author describes the filter as not validated: no formal research was conducted to test it out. It was created by combining the McKibbon and PubMed filters and removing duplicate terms.
NB. The PubMed filter used when the filter was created has now been replaced by an updated version.
B. Identification of a gold standard (GS) of known relevant records
B. 1 Did the authors identify one or more gold standards (GSs)?nown relevant records
None
B.2 How did the authors identify the records in each GS? wn relevant records
B.3 Report the dates of the records in each GS. wn relevant records
B.4 What are the inclusion criteria for each GS? relevant records
B.5 Describe the size of each GS and the authors’ justification, if provided (for example the size of the gold standard may have been determined by a power calculation) antcords
B.6 Are there limitations to the gold standard(s)? ntcords
B.7 How was each gold standard used? cords
[ ] to identify potential search terms
[ ] to derive potential strategies (groups of terms)
[ ] to test internal validity
[ ] to test external validity
[ ] other, please specify
B.8 Other observations. cords
C. How did the researchers identify the search terms in their filter(s) (select all that apply)?
C.1 Adapted a published search strategy.
Yes
The authors combined the McKibbon and PubMed search strategies and eliminated duplicate terms.
C.2 Asked experts for suggestions of relevant terms.
No
C.3 Used a database thesaurus.
No
C.4 Statistical analysis of terms in a gold standard set of records (see B above).
No
C.5 Extracted terms from the gold standard set of records (see B above).
No
C.6 Extracted terms from some relevant records (but not a gold standard).
C.7 Tick all types of search terms tested.
[x] subject headings
[x] text words (e.g. in title, abstract)
[x] publication types
[ ] subheadings
[ ] check tags
[ ] other, please specify
C.8 Include the citation of any adapted strategies.
McKibbon A, Eady A, Marks S. PDQ evidence-based principles and practice. Hamilton, Ontario, Canada: BC Decker Inc.,1999:136.
Search Strategy Used to Create the Systematic Reviews Subset on PubMed (February 2007) http://www.nlm.nih.gov/bsd/pubmed_subsets/sysreviews_strategy.html
C.9 How were the (final) combination(s) of search terms selected?
The strategy comprised the terms that remained after the removal of duplicates when terms from both strategies had been combined.
C.10 Were the search terms combined (using Boolean logic) in a way that is likely to retrieve the studies of interest?
Yes
C.11 Other observations.
D. Internal validity testing (This type of testing is possible when the search filter terms were developed from a known gold standard set of records).
D.1 How many filters were tested for internal validity? cords).
None
D.2 Was the performance of the search filter tested on the gold standard from which it was derived?ds).
No
D.3 Report sensitivity data (a single value, a range, ‘Unclear’* or ‘not reported’, as appropriate). *Please describe. ds).
D.4 Report precision data (a single value, a range, ‘Unclear’* or ‘not reported’ as appropriate). *Please describe. ).
D.6 Other performance measures reported.
D.7 Other observations.
E. External validity testing (This section relates to testing the search filter on records that are different from the records used to identify the search terms).
E.1 How many filters were tested for external validity on records different from those used to identify the search terms?
E.2 Describe the validation set(s) of records, including the interface.
For each filter report the following information.
E.3 On which validation set(s) was the filter tested?
E.4 Report sensitivity data for each validation set (a single value, a range or ‘Unclear’ or ‘not reported’, as appropriate).
E.5 Report precision data for each validation set (report a single value, a range or ‘Unclear’ or ‘not reported’, as appropriate).
E.6 Report specificity data for each validation set (a single value, a range or ‘Unclear’ or ‘not reported’, as appropriate).
E.7 Other performance measures reported.
E.8 Other observations
F. Limitations and Comparisons
F.1 Did the authors discuss any limitations to their research?
F.2 Are there other potential limitations to this research that you have noticed?
F.3 Report any comparisons of the performance of the filter against other relevant published filters (sensitivity, precision, specificity or other measures).
F.4 Include the citations of any compared filters.
F.5 Other observations and / or comments.
G. Other comments. This section can be used to provide any other comments. Selected prompts for issues to bear in mind are given below.
G.1 Have you noticed any errors in the document that might impact on the usability of the filter?
Should line 42 of the filter read”or/37-41” not “or/37-40”?
G.2 Are there any published errata or comments (for example in the MEDLINE record)?
G.3 Is there public access to pre-publication history and / or correspondence?
No
G.4 Are further data available on a linked site or from the authors?
Yes
A link to McKibbon’s strategy is provided.
G.5 Include references to related papers and/or other relevant material.
G.6. Other comments