Retrieving randomized controlled trials from medline: a comparison of 38 published search filters

Background:  People search medline for trials of healthcare interventions for clinical decisions, or to produce systematic reviews, practice guidelines, or technology assessments. Finding all relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with little extraneous material is challenging. Objective:  To...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Health information and libraries journal Vol. 26; no. 3; pp. 187 - 202
Main Authors: McKibbon, Kathleen Ann, Wilczynski, Nancy Lou, Haynes, Robert Brian
Format: Journal Article
Language:English
Published: Oxford, UK Blackwell Publishing Ltd 01.09.2009
Subjects:
Abstracting and Indexing as Topic - methods
Bibliometrics
Clinical trials
Filtering software
Humans
Information Storage and Retrieval - methods
Medical Subject Headings
MEDLINE
Online information retrieval
Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic - statistics & numerical data
Reproducibility of Results
Research Design
Sensitivity and Specificity
Subject Headings
Terminology as Topic
United States
United States
ISSN:1471-1834, 1471-1842
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Background:  People search medline for trials of healthcare interventions for clinical decisions, or to produce systematic reviews, practice guidelines, or technology assessments. Finding all relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with little extraneous material is challenging. Objective:  To provide comparative data on the operating characteristics of search filters designed to retrieve RCTs from medline. Methods:  We identified 38 filters. The testing database comprises handsearching data from 161 clinical journals indexed in medline. Sensitivity, specificity and precision were calculated. Results:  The number of terms and operating characteristics varied considerably. Comparing the retrieval against the single term ‘randomized controlled trials.pt.’ (sensitivity for retrieving RCTs, 93.7%), 24 of 38 filters had statistically higher sensitivity; 6 had a sensitivity of at least 99.0%. Four other filters had specificities (non retrieval of non‐RCTs) that were statistically not different or better than the single term (97.6%). Precision was poor: only two filters had precision (proportion of retrieved articles that were RCTs) statistically similar to that of the single term (56.4%)—all others were lower. Filters with more search terms often had lower specificity, especially at high sensitivities. Conclusion:  Many RCT filters exist (n = 38). These comparative data can direct the choice of an RCT filter.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 23
ISSN:1471-1834
1471-1842
DOI:10.1111/j.1471-1842.2008.00827.x