Filtering failure: the impact of automated indexing in Medline on retrieval of human studies for knowledge synthesis

Objective: Use of the search filter ‘exp animals/ not humans.sh’ is a well-established method in evidence synthesis to exclude non-human studies. However, the shift to automated indexing of Medline records has raised concerns about the use of subject-heading-based search techniques. We sought to det...

Celý popis

Uložené v:
Podrobná bibliografia
Vydané v:Journal of the Medical Library Association Ročník 113; číslo 1; s. 58 - 64
Hlavní autori: Askin, Nicole, Ostapyk, Tyler, Epp, Carla
Médium: Journal Article
Jazyk:English
Vydavateľské údaje: United States Medical Library Association 01.01.2025
University Library System, University of Pittsburgh
Predmet:
Abstract and Indexing
Abstracting and Indexing - methods
Abstracting and Indexing - standards
Algorithms
Animal human relations
Animals
Archives & records
Automated indexing
Automatic indexing
Automation
Clinical trials
Evaluation
Evidence Synthesis
Evidence-based medicine
Humans
Inappropriateness
Indexing
Influence
Information Storage and Retrieval - methods
Interlibrary loans
Medical libraries
Medical research
Medical Subject Headings
Medical Subject Headings-MeSH
MEDLINE
Online databases
Original Investigation
Retrieval
Subject heading schemes
United States
Abstract and Indexing
Automated Indexing
Evidence Synthesis
Medical Subject Headings (MeSH)
ISSN:1536-5050, 1558-9439, 1558-9439
On-line prístup:Získať plný text
Tagy: Pridať tag
Žiadne tagy, Buďte prvý, kto otaguje tento záznam!
Popis
Shrnutí:Objective: Use of the search filter ‘exp animals/ not humans.sh’ is a well-established method in evidence synthesis to exclude non-human studies. However, the shift to automated indexing of Medline records has raised concerns about the use of subject-heading-based search techniques. We sought to determine how often this string inappropriately excludes human studies among automated as compared to manually indexed records in Ovid Medline. Methods: We searched Ovid Medline for studies published in 2021 and 2022 using the Cochrane Highly Sensitive Search Strategy for randomized trials. We identified all results excluded by the non-human-studies filter. Records were divided into sets based on indexing method: automated, curated, or manual. Each set was screened to identify human studies. Results: Human studies were incorrectly excluded in all three conditions, but automated indexing inappropriately excluded human studies at nearly double the rate as manual indexing. In looking specifically at human clinical randomized controlled trials (RCTs), the rate of inappropriate exclusion of automated-indexing records was seven times that of manually-indexed records. Conclusions: Given our findings, searchers are advised to carefully review the effect of the ‘exp animals/ not humans.sh’ search filter on their search results, pending improvements to the automated indexing process.
Bibliografia:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 14
content type line 23
ISSN:1536-5050
1558-9439
1558-9439
DOI:10.5195/jmla.2025.1972