scholarly journals The development of search filters for adverse effects of medical devices in medline and embase

2019 ◽  
Vol 36 (3) ◽  
pp. 244-263 ◽  
Author(s):  
Su Golder ◽  
Kelly Farrah ◽  
Monika Mierzwinski‐Urban ◽  
Kath Wright ◽  
Yoon Kong Loke
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Effects ◽  
Medical Devices ◽  
Search Filters

scholarly journals Effectiveness of adverse effects search filters: drugs versus medical devices

2016 ◽  
Vol 104 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kelly Farrah, MLIS, AHIP ◽  
Monika Mierzwinski-Urban, MLIS ◽  
Karen Cimon
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Effects ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Medical Devices ◽  
Diagnostic Tests ◽  
Safety Information ◽  
Health Technologies ◽  
Rapid Reviews ◽  
Search Filters ◽  
Testing Set

Objective: The study tested the performance of adverse effects search filters when searching for safety information on medical devices, procedures, and diagnostic tests in MEDLINE and Embase.Methods: The sensitivity of 3 filters was determined using a sample of 631 references from 131 rapid reviews related to the safety of health technologies. The references were divided into 2 sets by type of intervention: drugs and nondrug health technologies. Keyword and indexing analysis were performed on references from the nondrug testing set that 1 or more of the filters did not retrieve.Results: For all 3 filters, sensitivity was lower for nondrug health technologies (ranging from 53%– 87%) than for drugs (88%–93%) in both databases. When tested on the nondrug health technologies set, sensitivity was lower in Embase (ranging from 53%–81%) than in MEDLINE (67%–87%) for all filters. Of the nondrug records that 1 or more of the filters missed, 39% of the missed MEDLINE records and 18% of the missed Embase records did not contain any indexing terms related to adverse events. Analyzing the titles and abstracts of nondrug records that were missed by any 1 filter, the most commonly used keywords related to adverse effects were: risk, complications, mortality, contamination, hemorrhage, and failure.Conclusions: In this study, adverse effects filters were less effective at finding information about the safety of medical devices, procedures, and tests compared to information about the safety of drugs.

scholarly journals Effectiveness of adverse effects search filters: drugs versus medical devices

2016 ◽  
Vol 104 (3) ◽  
pp. 221-225 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kelly Farrah ◽  
Monika Mierzwinski-Urban ◽  
Karen Cimon
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Effects ◽  
Medical Devices ◽  
Search Filters

scholarly journals Naming Specific Adverse Effects Improves Relative Recall for Search Filters Identifying Literature on Surgical Interventions in MEDLINE and Embase

2019 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 65-67
Author(s):  
Ann Glusker
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Effects ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Mesh Term ◽  
Search Strategies ◽  
User Engagement ◽  
Discussion Section ◽  
Surgical Interventions ◽  
Search Terms ◽  
Search Filters ◽  
Specific Search

A Review of: Golder, S., Wright, K., & Loke, Y.K. (2018). The development of search filters for adverse effects of surgical interventions in MEDLINE and Embase. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 35(2), 121-129. https://doi.org/10.1111/hir.12213 Abstract Objective – “To develop and validate search filters for MEDLINE and Embase for the adverse effects of surgical interventions” (p.121). Design – From a universe of systematic reviews, the authors created “an unselected cohort…where relevant articles are not chosen because of the presence of adverse effects terms” (p.123). The studies referenced in the cohort reviews were extracted to create an overall citation set. From this, three equal-sized sets of studies were created by random selection, and used for: development of a filter (identifying search terms); evaluation of the filter (testing how well it worked); and validation of the filter (assessing how well it retrieved relevant studies). Setting – Systematic reviews of adverse effects from the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), published in 2014. Subjects – 358 studies derived from the references of 19 systematic reviews (352 available in MEDLINE, 348 available in Embase). Methods – Word and phrase frequency analysis was performed on the development set of articles to identify a list of terms, starting with the term creating the highest recall from titles and abstracts of articles, and continuing until adding new search terms produced no more new records recalled. The search strategy thus developed was then tested on the evaluation set of articles. In this case, using the strategy recalled all of the articles which could be obtained using generic search terms; however, adding specific search terms (such as the MeSH term “surgical site infection”) improved recall. Finally, the strategy incorporating both generic and specific search terms for adverse effects was used on the validation set of articles. Search strategies used are included in the article, as is a list in the discussion section of MeSH and Embase indexing terms specific to or suggesting adverse effects. Main Results – “In each case the addition of specific adverse effects terms could have improved the recall of the searches” (p. 127). This was true for all six cases (development, evaluation and validation study sets, for each of MEDLINE and Embase) in which specific terms were added to searches using generic terms, and recall percentages compared. Conclusion – While no filter can deliver 100% of items in a given standard set of studies on adverse effects (since title and abstract fields may not contain any indication of relevance to the topic), adding specific adverse effects terms to generic ones while developing filters is shown to improve recall for surgery-related adverse effects (similarly to drug-related adverse effects). The use of filters requires user engagement and critical analysis; at the same time, deploying well-constructed filters can have many benefits, including: helping users, especially clinicians, get a search started; managing a large and unwieldy set of citations retrieved; and to suggest new search strategies.

scholarly journals Searching for Adverse Effects in MEDLINE and EMBASE Requires a Combined Approach for Efficient Retrieval

2006 ◽  
Vol 1 (3) ◽  
pp. 60
Author(s):  
Marcy L. Brown
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Adverse Effects ◽  
Drug Effects ◽  
Search Strategies ◽  
Controlled Vocabulary ◽  
Medline Search ◽  
Drug Names ◽  
Final Approach ◽  
Search Filters ◽  
The Uk

A review of: Golder, Su, Heather M. McIntosh, Steve Duffy, and Julie Glanville. “Developing Efficient Search Strategies to Identify Reports of Adverse Effects in MEDLINE and EMBASE.” Health Information & Libraries Journal 23.1 (Mar. 2006): 3-12. Objective – To assess the sensitivity and precision of various search strategies for retrieving adverse effects studies from the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases. Design – Analytical survey. Subjects – A case study using a recently published systematic review of the effectiveness and adverse effects of seven new anti-epileptic drugs. Setting – MEDLINE and EMBASE searches performed by researchers at the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and the UK Cochrane Centre Search Filters Design Group at the University of York, UK. Methods – Five key approaches to searching were defined. The first approach used either text words or controlled vocabulary to search for specific adverse effects. The second used subheadings or qualifiers either attached to drug names found in the controlled vocabulary (approach 2a) or ‘floating’ without drug names (approach 2b). The third approach used text words as synonyms for the phrase ‘adverse effects.’ The fourth used controlled indexing terms for adverse effects. The fifth and final approach used two published search strategies incorporating study design (Badgett et al., Loke et al.). These five approaches were used to search for studies of the adverse effects of seven new anti-epileptic drugs. 5,011 unique papers were retrieved. Of these, 236 were judged potentially relevant and 225 full text articles were obtained. The inclusion criteria from a previously published systematic review (Wilby et al.) were applied to the papers, and 79 met the criteria. Five papers were added to the set after being identified from reference lists, clinical experts, and other sources. This new set of 84 studies was used as a quasi gold standard (QGS) against which more than 300 combinations of the five approaches could be tested. To create the set of possible approaches, the researchers combined search strategies one through four in all possible ways, and used all available subheading combinations from 2a and 2b. The Badgett and Loke searches were tested separately. Main Results – Sensitivity and precision were determined for each combination. Formulas used to calculate sensitivity and precision were provided. In MEDLINE, search strategies using floating subheadings achieved the highest sensitivity. The most useful single subheading in both MEDLINE and EMBASE was “adverse effects,” with 79.1% and 79.5% sensitivity respectively. Of the more than 300 combinations tested, the most sensitive combination in MEDLINE included specified adverse effects in combination with the floating subheadings “adverse effects,” “complications,” and “drug effects,” together with text words for adverse effects. This strategy had 97.0% sensitivity, but low precision at 2.8%. The highest precision was achieved by using subheadings attached to drug indexing terms. In EMBASE, the strategy of Loke et al. provided the highest sensitivity at 86.3% and precision of 2.0%. Since researchers are not likely to know in advance all of the reported adverse effects of a particular drug therapy, the most sensitive strategies without specific adverse events were also identified. The search with the highest sensitivity in MEDLINE had 95.5% sensitivity, and 97.3% sensitivity in EMBASE. Conclusion – Searching for adverse effects requires a combination of approaches in both MEDLINE and EMBASE. In MEDLINE, the most sensitive combination yielded 97.0% sensitivity. Regardless of the approach used, precision remains low. An effective generic search filter for adverse effects searches may not yet be feasible. More research is needed on search strategies, as well as more consistent methods of reporting and indexing adverse effects.

Cutaneous Adverse Effects of Diabetes Mellitus Medications and Medical Devices: A Review

2018 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 97-114 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrick M. Jedlowski ◽  
Charisse H. Te ◽  
Robert J. Segal ◽  
Maryam T. Fazel
Keyword(s):  
Diabetes Mellitus ◽  
Adverse Effects ◽  
Medical Devices

Types of Disposable Medical Devices Reused in Hospitals

1986 ◽  
Vol 7 (10) ◽  
pp. 491-494 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. Glen Mayhall
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Adverse Effects ◽  
Cost Saving ◽  
Health Care Costs ◽  
Medical Devices ◽  
Medical Center ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Scientific Study ◽  
Saving Measure ◽  
Care Costs

AbstractRising health care costs have prompted hospitals to turn to reprocessing and reuse of disposable devices as a cost-saving measure. The safety, efficacy, and cost benefit of such a practice are largely unknown. Classification schemata are presented as a means of categorizing the reasons for reprocessing and the types of adverse effects that may result from reprocessing and reuse. The very limited literature on reuse of disposable devices is reviewed. Examples of the categories of reprocessing and adverse effects are provided from a review of the experience with reprocessing and reuse at a university medical center. With the rising pressure for containment of health care costs, it is likely that this practice will expand further. The practice of reprocessing and reuse should be subjected to scientific study.

Bisphenol A and Phthalates Exhibit Similar Toxicogenomics and Health Effects

2020 ◽  
pp. 263-287
Author(s):  
Sumaya Hassan ◽  
Rohaya Ali ◽  
Durdana Shah ◽  
Nasreena Sajjad ◽  
Jasfeeda Qadir
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Effects ◽  
Bisphenol A ◽  
Organic Pollutants ◽  
Medical Devices ◽  
Protein Interactions ◽  
Food Packaging ◽  
Packaging Materials ◽  
Water Pipes ◽  
Skin Contact ◽  
The Matrix

Bisphenol A and phthalates are most frequently detected organic pollutants found in our surroundings because of their regular use as plasticizers in daily use polymeric products. BPA is used in manufacturing baby feeding bottles, water pipes, canned food linings, and food packaging materials. Phthalates are used in polyvinyl chloride products including clothing, toys, medical devices, and food packaging. These chemicals are not bound to the matrix and leach out into the surroundings on slight change in the environment, like alteration in pH, temperature, and pressure. Humans are continuously exposed to these chemicals through skin contact, inhalation, or ingestion when the leachates enter food, drinks, air, water, or soil. The Comparative Toxicogenomics Database (CTD) revealed that Bisphenol A has 1932 interactions with genes/proteins and few frequently used phthalates (DEHP, MEHP, DBP, BBP, and MBP) showed 484 gene/protein interactions. Similar toxicogenomics and adverse effects of Bisphenol A and phthalates on human health are attributed to their 89 common interacting genes/proteins.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document