Skip to main content
Article thumbnail
Location of Repository

So many filters, so little time : the development of a search filter appraisal checklist

By Julie Glanville, Sue Bayliss, Andrew Booth, Yenal Dundar, Hasina Fernandez, Nigel David Fleeman, Louise Foster, Anne Fry-Smith, Su Golder, Carol Lefebvre, Caroline Miller, Suzy Paisley, Liz Payne, Alison Price, Karen Welch and Cynthia Mary Fraser

Abstract

Objectives: The authors developed a tool to assess the quality of search filters designed to retrieve records for studies with specific research designs (e.g., diagnostic studies).\ud Methods: The UK InterTASC Information Specialists' Sub-Group (ISSG), a group of experienced health care information specialists, reviewed the literature to evaluate existing search filter appraisal tools and determined that existing tools were inadequate for their needs. The group held consensus meetings to develop a new filter appraisal tool consisting of a search filter appraisal checklist and a structured abstract. ISSG members tested the final checklist using three published search filters.\ud Results: The detailed ISSG Search Filter Appraisal Checklist captures relevance criteria and methods used to develop and test search filters. The checklist includes categorical and descriptive responses and is accompanied by a structured abstract that provides a summary of key quality features of a filter.\ud Discussion: The checklist is a comprehensive appraisal tool that can assist health sciences librarians and others in choosing search filters. The checklist reports filter design methods and search performance measures, such as sensitivity and precision. The checklist can also aid filter developers by indicating information on core methods that should be reported to help assess filter suitability. The generalizability of the checklist for non-methods filters remains to be explored.The work of InterTASC members, including the ISSG, is funded through the UK National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programm

Topics: Databases, Bibliographic, Information Storage a& Retrieval
Publisher: MLA
Year: 2008
OAI identifier: oai:aura.abdn.ac.uk:2164/271
Journal:

Suggested articles

Citations

  1. (2001). A statistical approach to designing search filters to find systematic reviews: objectivity enhances accuracy. J Inf Sci.
  2. (2007). CADTH CAI and ranking tool for search filters [workshop paper]. Health Technology Assessment International.
  3. (2008). Chapter 6: Searching for studies [internet].
  4. Developing optimal search strategies for detecting clinically relevant qualitative studies in Medline.
  5. (2004). Evaluation of methodological search filters - a review. Health Info Libr J.
  6. (2006). filters [internet]. doi
  7. (2006). How to identify randomized controlled trials in MEDLINE: ten years on. J Med Libr Assoc.
  8. (2002). Identifying diagnostic studies in MEDLINE: reducing the number needed to read. J Am Med Inform Assoc.
  9. (1999). Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Quality of reporting of meta-analyses. Lancet
  10. (2008). InterTASC Information Specialists' Sub-Group. Search filter resource: diagnostic studies [internet]. York: InterTASC Information Specialists' Sub-Group,
  11. (2008). InterTASC Information Specialists' Sub-Group. Search filter resource: home page [internet]. York: InterTASC Information Specialists' Sub-Group,
  12. (2008). InterTASC Information Specialists' Sub-Group. Search filter resource: qualitative research [internet]. York: InterTASC Information Specialists' Sub-Group,
  13. No role for quality scores in systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy studies.
  14. (2008). of Medicine. PubMed Clinical Queries [internet].
  15. Optimizing search strategies to identify randomized controlled trials in MEDLINE.
  16. The CONSORT Group. The CONSORT statement [internet].
  17. (2007). The CONSORT Group. Welcome to the CONSORT statement website [internet].
  18. (2003). The development of QUADAS: a tool for the quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol.

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.