Locating sex-specific evidence on clinical questions in MEDLINE: a search filter for use on OvidSP™

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Many recently published clinical studies report sex-specific data. This information may help to improve clinical decision-making for both sexes, but it is not easily accessible in MEDLINE. The aim of this project was to develop and validate a search filter that would facilitate the retrieval of studies reporting high quality sex-specific data on clinical questions.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A filter was developed by screening titles, abstracts and Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) in a set of 80 high quality and relevant papers, 75 of which were identified through a review of clinical guidelines and five through other means. The filter, for use on OvidSP™, consists of nine command lines for searching free text words in the title, abstract and MeSH of a paper. It was able to identify 74/80 (92.5%) of the articles from which it was derived. The filter was evaluated in a set of 622 recently published original studies on Alzheimer's disease and on asthma. It was validated against a reference of 98 studies from this set, which provided high quality, clinically relevant, sex-specific evidence. Recall and precision were used as performance measures.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The filter demonstrated 81/98 (83%) recall and 81/125 (65%) precision in retrieving relevant articles on Alzheimer's disease and on asthma. In comparison, only 30/98 (31%) recall would have been achieved if sex-specific MeSH terms only had been used.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>This sex-specific search filter performs well in retrieving relevant papers, while its precision rate is good. It performs better than a search with sex-specific MeSH. The filter can be useful to anyone seeking sex-specific clinical evidence (e.g., guideline organizations, researchers, medical educators, clinicians).</p

A systematic approach for uptake of evidence on sex-specific issues in guidelines - a pilot study

Rationale, aims and objectives Increasing evidence indicates that sex-specific issues may have impact on prevention, diagnosis, or treatment. These issues are not systematically considered during the development of Dutch clinical practice guidelines. The aim of this study is to identify how members of guideline development groups discuss sex-specific evidence, and whether and how the outcomes of these discussions are reflected in the guideline. Methods Six guideline development committees (GDCs) were studied. Each committee was supported by a staff member from the guideline organization who was trained and received feedback to facilitate uptake of evidence on sex differences in the process of guideline development. Non-participant observation and transcription of audio recordings from 22 GDC meetings were performed. Content analysis of meeting transcripts and guidelines were studied to analyse characteristics of discussion episodes on sex-specific research data-based issues (subject matter, initiator and group approach towards the topic and themes) and whether or not conclusions on evidence were reflected in the final guideline text. Results Of the 87 identified discussion episodes, 68 dealt with sex-specific research evidence potentially relevant to guidelines. Respectively 51%, 28% and 21% of the latter episodes were initiated by committee members, staff members and chairpersons. Group approaches towards the subject matter were generally positive. Data from 60% of those episodes were reflected in the final guideline text. Sex-specific data on reproductive issues were more often discussed and reflected in guideline texts than data on other health issues. Discussion episodes on sex-specific evidence initiated by chairpersons were most often reflected in the guidelines. Conclusions This pilot study indicates that GDCs regularly focused on sex-specific issues. The participation of a trained staff member contributed to thi