Optimizing search strategies to identify randomized controlled trials in MEDLINE

BACKGROUND: The Cochrane Highly Sensitive Search Strategy (HSSS), which contains three phases, is widely used to identify Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) in MEDLINE. Lefebvre and Clarke suggest that reviewers might consider using four revisions of the HSSS. The objective of this study is to validate these four revisions: combining the free text terms volunteer, crossover, versus, and the Medical Subject Heading CROSS-OVER STUDIES with the top two phases of the HSSS, respectively. METHODS: We replicated the subject search for 61 Cochrane reviews. The included studies of each review that were indexed in MEDLINE were pooled together by review and then combined with the subject search and each of the four proposed search strategies, the top two phases of the HSSS, and all three phases of the HSSS. These retrievals were used to calculate the sensitivity and precision of each of the six search strategies for each review. RESULTS: Across the 61 reviews, the search term versus combined with the top two phases of the HSSS was able to find 3 more included studies than the top two phases of the HSSS alone, or in combination with any of the other proposed search terms, but at the expense of missing 56 relevant articles that would be found if all three phases of the HSSS were used. The estimated time needed to finish a review is 1086 hours for all three phases of the HSSS, 823 hours for the strategy versus, 818 hours for the first two phases of the HSSS or any of the other three proposed strategies. CONCLUSION: This study shows that compared to the first two phases of the HSSS, adding the term versus to the top two phases of the HSSS balances the sensitivity and precision in the reviews studied here to some extent but the differences are very small. It is well known that missing relevant studies may result in bias in systematic reviews. Reviewers need to weigh the trade-offs when selecting the search strategies for identifying RCTs in MEDLINE

EMBASE search strategies for identifying methodologically sound diagnostic studies for use by clinicians and researchers

BACKGROUND: Accurate diagnosis by clinicians is the cornerstone of decision making for recommending clinical interventions. The current best evidence from research concerning diagnostic tests changes unpredictably as science advances. Both clinicians and researchers need dependable access to published evidence concerning diagnostic accuracy. Bibliographic databases such as EMBASE provide the most widely available entrée to this literature. The objective of this study was to develop search strategies that optimize the retrieval of methodologically sound diagnostic studies from EMBASE for use by clinicians. METHODS: An analytic survey was conducted, comparing hand searches of 55 journals with retrievals from EMBASE for 4,843 candidate search terms and 6,574 combinations. All articles were rated using purpose and quality indicators, and clinically relevant diagnostic accuracy articles were categorized as 'pass' or 'fail' according to explicit criteria for scientific merit. Candidate search strategies were run in EMBASE, the retrievals being compared with the hand search data. The proposed search strategies were treated as "diagnostic tests" for sound studies and the manual review of the literature was treated as the "gold standard." The sensitivity, specificity, precision and accuracy of the search strategies were calculated. RESULTS: Of the 433 articles about diagnostic tests, 97 (22.4%) met basic criteria for scientific merit. Combinations of search terms reached peak sensitivities of 100% with specificity at 70.4%. Compared with best single terms, best multiple terms increased sensitivity for sound studies by 8.2% (absolute increase), but decreased specificity (absolute decrease 6%) when sensitivity was maximized. When terms were combined to maximize specificity, the single term "specificity.tw." (specificity of 98.2%) outperformed combinations of terms. CONCLUSION: Empirically derived search strategies combining indexing terms and textwords can achieve high sensitivity and specificity for retrieving sound diagnostic studies from EMBASE. These search filters will enhance the searching efforts of clinicians

The association of hydration status with physical signs, symptoms and survival in advanced cancer-The use of Bioelectrical Impedance Vector Analysis (BIVA) technology to evaluate fluid volume in palliative care: An observational study

Background Hydration in advanced cancer is a controversial area; however, current hydration assessments methods are poorly developed. Bioelectrical impedance vector analysis (BIVA) is an accurate hydration tool; however its application in advanced cancer has not been explored. This study used BIVA to evaluate hydration status in advanced cancer to examine the association of fluid status with symptoms, physical signs, renal biochemical measures and survival. Materials and methods An observational study of 90 adults with advanced cancer receiving care in a UK specialist palliative care inpatient unit was conducted. Hydration status was assessed using BIVA in addition to assessments of symptoms, physical signs, performance status, renal biochemical measures, oral fluid intake and medications. The association of clinical variables with hydration was evaluated using regression analysis. A survival analysis was conducted to examine the influence of hydration status and renal failure. Results The hydration status of participants was normal in 43 (47.8%), 'more hydrated' in 37 (41.1%) and 'less hydrated' in 10 (11.1%). Lower hydration was associated with increased symptom intensity (Beta = -0.29, p = 0.04) and higher scores for physical signs associated with dehydration (Beta = 10.94, p = 0.02). Higher hydration was associated with oedema (Beta = 2.55, p<0.001). Median survival was statistically significantly shorter in 'less hydrated' patients (44 vs. 68 days; p = 0.049) and in pre-renal failure (44 vs. 100 days; p = 0.003). Conclusions In advanced cancer, hydration status was associated with clinical signs and symptoms. Hydration status and pre-renal failure were independent predictors of survival. Further studies can establish the utility of BIVA as a standardised hydration assessment tool and explore its potential research application, in order to inform the clinical management of fluid balance in patients with advanced cancer

Which resources should be used to identify RCT/CCTs for systematic reviews: a systematic review

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviewers seek to comprehensively search for relevant studies and summarize these to present the most valid estimate of intervention effectiveness. The more resources searched, the higher the yield, and thus time and costs required to conduct a systematic review. While there is an abundance of evidence to suggest how extensive a search for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) should be, it is neither conclusive nor consistent. This systematic review was conducted in order to assess the value of different resources to identify trials for inclusion in systematic reviews. METHODS: Seven electronic databases, four journals and Cochrane Colloquia were searched. Key authors were contacted and references of relevant articles screened. Included studies compared two or more sources to find RCTs or controlled clinical trials (CCTs). A checklist was developed and applied to assess quality of reporting. Data were extracted by one reviewer and checked by a second. Medians and ranges for precision and recall were calculated; results were grouped by comparison. Meta-analysis was not performed due to large heterogeneity. Subgroup analyses were conducted for: search strategy (Cochrane, Simple, Complex, Index), expertise of the searcher (Cochrane, librarian, non-librarian), and study design (RCT and CCT). RESULTS: Sixty-four studies representing 13 electronic databases met inclusion criteria. The most common comparisons were MEDLINE vs. handsearching (n = 23), MEDLINE vs. MEDLINE+handsearching (n = 13), and MEDLINE vs. reference standard (n = 13). Quality was low, particularly for the reporting of study selection methodology. Overall, recall and precision varied substantially by comparison and ranged from 0 to 100% and 0 to 99%, respectively. The trial registries performed the best with median recall of 89% (range 84, 95) and median precision of 96.5% (96, 97), although these results are based on a small number of studies. Inadequate or inappropriate indexing was the reason most cited for missing studies. Complex and Cochrane search strategies (SS) performed better than Simple SS. CONCLUSION: Multiple-source comprehensive searches are necessary to identify all RCTs for a systematic review, although indexing needs to be improved. Although trial registries demonstrated the highest recall and precision, the Cochrane SS or a Complex SS in consultation with a librarian are recommended. Continued efforts to develop CENTRAL should be supported