scholarly journals Translation of Hedges in Medical Databases to Other Platforms’ Syntax May Cause Significantly Different Search Results

2011 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 55
Author(s):  
Heather Ganshorn
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Gold Standard ◽  
National Library ◽  
Search String ◽  
Proprietary Information ◽  
Search Results ◽  
Cochrane Reviews ◽  
Percentage Difference ◽  
Cochrane Database ◽  
Clinical Queries

Objective – To determine whether the methodological search filters in OvidSP MEDLINE and OvidSP EMBASE also known as Clinical Queries hedges had been modified from the originals which were written by the McMaster University Health Information Research Unit Hedges Group (the Haynes Group) and whether the translations of these hedges by the National Library of Medicine used in PubMed and EBSCO MEDLINE were reliable. The hedges examined are for the clinical categories of diagnosis, therapy, etiology, prognosis, clinical prediction guides, and reviews. The author also examined the translated National Library of Medicine (NLM) Systematic Reviews hedges in OvidSP MEDLINE and EBSCO MEDLINE. Design – Validity of hedges used in various databases. Setting – OvidSP MEDLINE, OvidSP EMBASE, EBSCO MEDLINE and PubMed were studied. Subjects – The Clinical Queries hedges designed to facilitate enhanced retrieval of particular types of studies in the above-mentioned databases were compared. Methods – The author ran the Clinical Queries hedges in OvidSP MEDLINE, OvidSP EMBASE and PubMed. Next, she manually entered the original Haynes Group published hedge search strings for each clinical query in these databases, and compared the results to the Clinical Queries. The author also compared the results obtained from the Ovid MEDLINE Clinical Queries versus the hedges in PubMed and EBSCO MEDLINE. The percentage difference in number of hits between the Ovid platform and the other platform was calculated. Where the difference was greater than 10%, the author modified the search string and re-tested it. There was no gold standard for comparison, so it was not possible to make calculations such as sensitivity, specificity, precision, or accuracy. For the testing of the Review hedges, the author used the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews as a gold standard to compare search results. She also compared the results in OvidSP MEDLINE to the results in EBSCO MEDLINE and PubMed. Main Results – Comparing the 27 OvidSP Clinical Queries limits to the equivalent Haynes search strings, the author found identical results, suggesting that the OvidSP hedges have not been changed from Haynes’ original search strings. However, when the OvidSP MEDLINE hedges were compared to PubMed and EBSCO, there were discrepancies. If the hedges were translated exactly, one should expect the result sets to be nearly identical, with the exception of records that had not yet been uploaded to OvidSP and EBSCO (PubMed contains records that are not yet fully indexed). However, other problems became evident. While the majority of searches yielded similar numbers of records, there were discrepancies of >10% in the number of hits for five of the Clinical Queries. Some of the hedges involved truncated search terms that, in PubMed, generated a message indicating that only the first 600 variations of the word root would be used. The author modified these hedges in order to obtain potentially more accurate results, though as she does not have a gold standard set for comparison, the modified hedges could not be thoroughly evaluated. Three of the EBSCO MEDLINE Clinical Queries hedges also generated significantly different results from OvidSP MEDLINE. The author was able to modify these hedges to generate similar results to those found in PubMed. The author’s examination of the various systematic review hedges identified other problems. For these hedges, it was possible to use the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews as a simple gold standard to assess the reliability of these filters. The Haynes Clinical Queries Review hedge is used in OvidSP EMBASE. The author found that this hedge’s sensitive filter retrieved 100% of the Cochrane Reviews, while the optimized filter retrieved all reviews but one. However, the specific filter retrieved only 16% of the Cochrane reviews. The author notes that the Haynes hedges were developed using a subset of journals that did not include the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. The Clinical Queries Review hedge in MEDLINE appeared to have better results. In OvidSP, the sensitive and optimized hedges found all but one record, while the specific hedge found 83% of the records, a result that was mirrored in EBSCO MEDLINE and PubMed. Conclusion - Users of OvidSP MEDLINE can be confident that the Clinical Queries limits are true translations of the hedges published by Haynes et al., as they were found to give identical results to manual entry of these hedges. However, users cannot be confident that these queries will give the same results in PubMed, due to differences in syntax between the two interfaces. Users of EBSCO MEDLINE can be less confident that the Clinical Queries have been perfectly translated from the original Haynes queries, as three of these queries were found to yield significantly different results from the OvidSP MEDLINE search. The author recommends that OvidSP be the search interface of choice when using these hedges in MEDLINE. The National Library of Medicine’s (NLM) Systematic Reviews hedge has been translated into OvidSP and EBSCO, but has never been validated. The author found significant errors in this hedge in the OvidSP version, which were rectified after she contacted Ovid. However, Ovid was reluctant to share its translation of the hedge, as this is proprietary information. The author recommends that for this reason, it is best to use PubMed to search for systematic reviews, as the search string for its hedge is publicly available. The author also notes that this issue of proprietary information is very problematic for librarians, as it makes it impossible for them to assess the hedges they are using from vendors, or to identify the source of the problem when they get unusual results.

scholarly journals Examination of the Clinical Queries and Systematic Review “hedges” in EMBASE and MEDLINE

2014 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
pp. 27 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susan M. Bradley
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Major Error ◽  
National Library ◽  
Search Queries ◽  
Search Results ◽  
Quality Control Testing ◽  
Search Filters ◽  
The One ◽  
Clinical Queries

Introduction – This investigation sought to determine whether the methodological search filters in place as Clinical Queries limits in OvidSP EMBASE and OvidSP MEDLINE had been modified from those written by Haynes et al. and whether the translations of these in PubMed and EBSCO MEDLINE were reliable. The translated National Library of Medicine (NLM) Systematic Reviews hedges in place in OvidSP MEDLINE and EBSCO MEDLINE were also examined. Methods – Search queries were run using the Clinical Queries and Systematic Reviews hedges incorporated into OvidSP EMBASE, OvidSP MEDLINE, PubMed, and EBSCO MEDLINE to determine the reliability of these limits in comparison with the published hedge search strings. Results – Five of the OvidSP EMBASE Clinical Queries hedges produced results that were different from the published search strings. Three of the EBSCO MEDLINE and five of the PubMed translated Clinical Queries hedges yielded markedly different results (>10% difference) than those obtained using the OvidSP MEDLINE hedge counterparts. The OvidSP MEDLINE Systematic Reviews subject subset hedge was found to have a major error, which has been corrected. Discussion – Translations of hedges to appropriate syntax for other database platforms may result in significantly different search results. The platform searched should ideally be the one for which the hedges were written and tested. Regardless, the hedges in place may not be the same as the published hedge search strings. Quality control testing is needed to ensure that the hedges in place as limits are the same as those that have been published.

scholarly journals Os impactos da pandemia de COVID-19 na mobilidade urbana: uma revisão narrativa de literatura

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (16) ◽  
pp. e460101623917
Author(s):  
Francisca Rafaela Pereira de Amorim Castro Rosa ◽  
Bárbara Queiroz de Figueiredo ◽  
Bruno Rodrigues Cancela ◽  
Dieison Danrlei Roehrs ◽  
João Victor Marques de Matos ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Information Services ◽  
Google Scholar ◽  
National Library ◽  
Electronic Library ◽  
Cochrane Database

Introdução: a mobilidade urbana é entendida como a capacidade cotidiana de deslocamento de pessoas e bens no espaço urbano de forma segura e em tempo considerado adequado. Recentemente, a situação pandêmica foi gradualmente amenizada e o plano de recuperação econômica e social foi colocado em pauta pelo governo durante o período pós-epidemia. Nessas circunstâncias, o sistema de transporte urbano desempenha um papel crucial no processo de recuperação social e econômica como garantia básica da cidade. Portanto, maior atenção deve ser dada aos impactos da pandemia de COVID-19 no sistema de transporte urbano, bem como no comportamento de viagem. Objetivo: evidenciar os impactos causados pela pandemia de COVID-19 na mobilidade urbana. Metodologia: trata-se de revisão narrativa da literatura, com estudos acoplados nas seguintes bases de dados: National Library of Medicine (PubMed MEDLINE), Scientific Electronic Library Online (Scielo), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), Google Scholar, Biblioteca Virtual em Saúde (BVS) e EBSCO Information Services. Resultados: alguns impactos sobre a mobilidade urbana puderam ser observados devido ao alto grau de contágio do novo coronavírus e, portanto, à necessidade de permanecer em casa e manter um distanciamento mínimo. São impactos a princípio sociais, econômicos ou ambientais, mas que apresentam forte relação com a mobilidade urbana. Em geral houve uma drástica diminuição da locomoção nas cidades, que se encontraram vazias, e há um temor com relação à volta às atividades normais à medida que o isolamento vai sendo flexibilizado. Considerações finais: a pandemia de COVID-19 provocou inúmeras mudanças na vida da população mundial. Na mobilidade urbana não foi diferente. Com o fechamento do comércio considerado não essencial, a suspensão de aulas e a instalação de regimes de teletrabalho, grande parte dos deslocamentos diários foram interrompidos e/ou modificados. Medidas como a instalação de políticas de subsídio do transporte público, de ampliação das ciclovias, de aplicação de ações de desestímulo do uso do transporte individual motorizado, de melhora na segurança pública e de circulação de pedestres e ciclistas etc., se mostraram urgentes durante a quarentena, não apenas para gerar condições mínimas para mobilidade ativa, mas também para melhorar a qualidade de vida da população como um todo.

scholarly journals Distúrbios olfatórios decorrentes de infecção por SARS-CoV-2: fisiopatologia, fatores de risco e possíveis intervenções

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (11) ◽  
pp. e180101119618
Author(s):  
Júlia Fernandes Nogueira ◽  
Bárbara Queiroz de Figueiredo ◽  
Ana Luísa de Castro Melo ◽  
Ana Paula Ferreira Araújo ◽  
Isabella Barata Linces Alves ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Information Services ◽  
Google Scholar ◽  
National Library ◽  
Electronic Library ◽  
Cochrane Database

Introdução: existem relatos de uma manifestação secundária à infecção e atuação viral no organismo: distúrbios do olfato e, consequentemente, do paladar, e que estão presentes antes mesmo da confirmação molecular da infecção causada por SARS-CoV-2. Objetivo: responder quais são os mecanismos de disfunções olfatórias decorrentes da Covid-19, bem como fatores de risco e possíveis intervenções. Metodologia: Trata-se de uma pesquisa descritiva do tipo revisão integrativa da literatura. A pesquisa foi realizada através do acesso online nas bases de dados National Library of Medicine (PubMed MEDLINE), Scientific Electronic Library Online (Scielo), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), Google Scholar, Biblioteca Virtual em Saúde (BVS) e EBSCO Information Services, no mês de agosto de 2021. Resultados: Os mecanismos dos distúrbios olfatórios relacionados à infecção por SARS-CoV-2 ainda são desconhecidos, mas é provavelmente o resultado de vários padrões, como edema da mucosa nasal, dano epitelial olfatório e até mesmo envolvimento da região central vias olfativas. Foi demonstrado que a expressão de enzima conversora de angiotensina (ACE2) foi encontrada na camada basal do epitélio escamoso não queratinizante na mucosa nasal e oral e na nasofaringe. Conclusão: Podem ocorrer distúrbios olfativo-gustativos em intensidades variáveis e prévios aos sintomas gerais da Covid-19, devem ser considerados como parte dos sintomas da doença, mesmo em quadros leves. Não há ainda evidências científicas de tratamentos específicos para tais distúrbios na Covid-19, sendo de importância que estudos posteriores consigam, por meio de empirismo clínico, melhor propedêutica para esses casos, principalmente aqueles que manifestam-se como sequela duradoura da infecção por SARS-CoV-2.

scholarly journals The origins, evolution, and future of The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

2009 ◽  
Vol 25 (S1) ◽  
pp. 182-195 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Starr ◽  
Iain Chalmers ◽  
Mike Clarke ◽  
Andrew D. Oxman
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Medical Profession ◽  
Relevant Information ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Electronic Publication ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Cochrane Reviews ◽  
New Information ◽  
Cochrane Database

The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) evolved in response to Archie Cochrane's challenge to the medical profession to assemble “a critical summary, adapted periodically, of all . . . relevant randomized controlled trials”. CDSR has been an electronic publication from its inception and this has meant that Cochrane reviews (i) need not be constrained by lack of space; (ii) can be updated as new information becomes available and when mistakes or other ways of improving them are identified; and (iii) can be cross-linked to other, related sources of relevant information. Although CDSR has become widely cited, it must continue to evolve in the light of technological and methodological developments, and in response to the needs of people making decisions about health care.

scholarly journals Search for unpublished data by systematic reviewers: an audit

BMJ Open ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (10) ◽  
pp. e017737 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hedyeh Ziai ◽  
Rujun Zhang ◽  
An-Wen Chan ◽  
Nav Persaud
Keyword(s):  
Publication Bias ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Ovid Medline ◽  
Cochrane Reviews ◽  
Unpublished Studies ◽  
Cochrane Database

ObjectivesWe audited a selection of systematic reviews published in 2013 and reported on the proportion of reviews that researched for unpublished data, included unpublished data in analysis and assessed for publication bias.DesignAudit of systematic reviews.Data sourcesWe searched PubMed and Ovid MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations between 1 January 2013 and 31 December 2013 for the following journals:Journal of the American Medical Association,The British Medical Journal,Lancet,Annals of Internal Medicineand theCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. We also searched the Cochrane Library and included 100 randomly selected Cochrane reviews.Eligibility criteriaSystematic reviews published in 2013 in the selected journals were included. Methodological reviews were excluded.Data extraction and synthesisTwo reviewers independently reviewed each included systematic review. The following data were extracted: whether the review searched for grey literature or unpublished data, the sources searched, whether unpublished data were included in analysis, whether publication bias was assessed and whether there was evidence of publication bias.Main findings203 reviews were included for analysis. 36% (73/203) of studies did not describe any attempt to obtain unpublished studies or to search grey literature. 89% (116/130) of studies that sought unpublished data found them. 33% (68/203) of studies included an assessment of publication bias, and 40% (27/68) of these found evidence of publication bias.ConclusionA significant fraction of systematic reviews included in our study did not search for unpublished data. Publication bias may be present in almost half the published systematic reviews that assessed for it. Exclusion of unpublished data may lead to biased estimates of efficacy or safety in systematic reviews.

scholarly journals Relação entre COVID-19 e sistema sanguíneo ABO: evidências claras e suficientes?

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (10) ◽  
pp. 188101018817
Author(s):  
Bárbara Oliveira Vasconcelos Souto ◽  
Bárbara Queiroz de Figueiredo ◽  
Andressa Caetano Martins Silva ◽  
Bruno Faria Coury ◽  
Gabriele Durante ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Information Services ◽  
Google Scholar ◽  
National Library ◽  
Electronic Library ◽  
Cochrane Database

Introdução: O grupo sanguíneo ABO é exemplo de adaptação evolutiva onde, por milhares de anos, microrganismos e humanos interagiram de forma simbiótica ou patológica, influenciando na genética das populações e na evolução do genoma humano pela seleção natural de alelos específicos capazes de modificar a patogênese. Objetivo: é analisar o significado prognóstico dos antígenos dos grupos sanguíneos ABO e Rh juntamente com vários parâmetros em pacientes acompanhados com o diagnóstico de COVID-19. Metodologia: Trata-se de uma pesquisa descritiva do tipo revisão integrativa da literatura, que buscou analisar o significado prognóstico dos antígenos dos grupos sanguíneos ABO e Rh, juntamente com vários parâmetros em pacientes acompanhados com o diagnóstico de COVID-19. A pesquisa foi realizada através do acesso online nas bases de dados National Library of Medicine (PubMed MEDLINE), Scientific Electronic Library Online (Scielo), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), Google Scholar, Biblioteca Virtual em Saúde (BVS) e EBSCO Information Services, no mês de julho de 2021. Resultados: O tipo sanguíneo mais frequentemente observado foi o A + entre os pacientes com COVID-19. O grupo sanguíneo Rh + foi encontrado em todos os casos admitidos na UTI e com evolução mortal. O grupo sanguíneo A estava associado a um risco aumentado de infecção, enquanto o grupo O estava associado com um risco reduzido. Conclusão: Não há como afirmar a associação do grupo sanguíneo A positivo com COVID-19 sem resultados cientificamente comprovados em diferentes populações. No entanto, a associação entre grupos sanguíneos e outras infecções no passado não pode ser ignorada.

scholarly journals O uso de Anti-Inflamatórios Não esteroidais (AINEs) como uma das alternativas farmacológicas para pacientes acometidos pela Doença de Alzheimer: uma revisão sistemática de literatura

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (16) ◽  
pp. e146101623609
Author(s):  
Nicolly Skarlet Souto Oliveira ◽  
Ana Flávia Braz de Morais ◽  
Ana Paula Gomes Tavares ◽  
Bárbara Queiroz de Figueiredo ◽  
Bruna Alves de Matos ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Information Services ◽  
Google Scholar ◽  
National Library ◽  
Electronic Library ◽  
Cochrane Database

Introdução:  resposta inflamatória na DA é caracterizada pela presença de microglia ativada (as células imunocompetentes residentes do cérebro) em estreita associação com placas neuríticas. Evidências atuais sugerem que a microglia está envolvida principalmente na atividade fagocítica e pode ser responsável por induzir danos neuronais adicionais ao gerar espécies de oxigênio e enzimas proteolíticas.  Se os anti-inflamatórios protegem contra a neurodegeneração observada no cérebro de pacientes com DA, então os pacientes com histórico de uso de anti-inflamatórios devem ter uma redução nas alterações patológicas no cérebro e na inflamação cerebral. Objetivo: explanar acerca do uso dos anti-inflamatórios não esteroidais como terapêutica medicamentosa para a Doença de Alzheimer. Resultados: acredita-se que a inflamação cerebral contribua para as características patológicas da doença de Alzheimer (DA), e foi postulado que os anti-inflamatórios protegem contra esse dano ao tecido. No entanto, um dos fatores controversos quanto ao uso dos anti-inflamatórios não-esteroidais para redução do risco de desenvolvimento da doença de Alzheimer é a toxicidade associada a esses medicamentos. Metodologia: Trata-se de uma revisão sistemática de literatura com trabalhos buscados nas seguintes bases de dados: National Library of Medicine (PubMed MEDLINE), Scientific Electronic Library Online (Scielo), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), Google Scholar, Biblioteca Virtual em Saúde (BVS) e EBSCO Information Services. Foram analisadas fontes relevantes inerentes ao tema, utilizando como um dos principais critérios a escolha de artigos atuais, originais e internacionais. Totalizaram-se 12 artigos científicos para a revisão. Considerações finais: Os anti-inflamatórios têm sido sugeridos como um possível tratamento para a doença de Alzheimer (DA). A associação de proteínas imunes e células imunocompetentes da microglia com placas senis (PS) na DA e no envelhecimento normal sugere que essas drogas podem ser capazes de modificar o curso da DA, seja interferindo na formação de SP ou suprimindo a inflamação.

scholarly journals Searching for randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews on exercise. A descriptive study

2014 ◽  
Vol 133 (2) ◽  
pp. 109-114
Author(s):  
Antonio José Grande ◽  
Tammy Hoffmann ◽  
Paul Glasziou
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Descriptive Study ◽  
Mesh Term ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Medical Subject Headings ◽  
Sports Science ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Cochrane Database ◽  
Clinical Queries

CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVE: The current paradigm of science is to accumulate as much research data as possible, with less thought given to navigation or synthesis of the resulting mass, which hampers locating and using the research. The aim here was to describe the number of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews (SRs) focusing on exercise, and their journal sources, that have been indexed in PubMed over time. DESIGN AND SETTING: Descriptive study conducted at Bond University, Australia. METHOD: To find RCTs, a search was conducted in PubMed Clinical Queries, using the category "Therapy" and the Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) term "Exercise". To find SRs, a search was conducted in PubMed Clinical Queries, using the category "Therapy", the MeSH term "Exercise" and various methodological filters. RESULTS: Up until 2011, 9,354 RCTs about exercise were published in 1,250 journals and 1,262 SRs in 513 journals. Journals in the area of Sports Science published the greatest number of RCTs and journals categorized as belonging to "Other health professions" area (for example nursing or psychology) published the greatest number of SRs. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews was the principal source for SRs, with 9.8% of the total, while the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research and Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise published 4.4% and 5.0% of the RCTs, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The rapid growth and resulting scatter of RCTs and SRs on exercise presents challenges for locating and using this research. Solutions for this issue need to be considered.

scholarly journals The epidemiology of systematic review updates: a longitudinal study of updating of Cochrane reviews, 2003 to 2018

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hilda Bastian ◽  
Jenny Doust ◽  
Mike Clarke ◽  
Paul Glasziou
Keyword(s):  
Median Time ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Major Change ◽  
Cochrane Collaboration ◽  
Median Number ◽  
Cochrane Reviews ◽  
Cochrane Database ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Cochrane Collaboration ◽  
The Impact

ABSTRACTBackgroundThe Cochrane Collaboration has been publishing systematic reviews in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) since 1995, with the intention that these be updated periodically.ObjectivesTo chart the long-term updating history of a cohort of Cochrane reviews and the impact on the number of included studies.MethodsThe status of a cohort of Cochrane reviews updated in 2003 was assessed at three time points: 2003, 2011, and 2018. We assessed their subject scope, compiled their publication history using PubMed and CDSR, and compared them to all Cochrane reviews available in 2002 and 2017/18.ResultsOf the 1,532 Cochrane reviews available in 2002, 11.3% were updated in 2003, with 16.6% not updated between 2003 and 2011. The reviews updated in 2003 were not markedly different to other reviews available in 2002, but more were retracted or declared stable by 2011 (13.3% versus 6.3%). The 2003 update led to a major change of the conclusions of 2.8% of updated reviews (n = 177). The cohort had a median time since publication of the first full version of the review of 18 years and a median of three updates by 2018 (range 1–11). The median time to update was three years (range 0–14 years). By the end of 2018, the median time since the last update was seven years (range 0–15). The median number of included studies rose from eight in the version of the review before the 2003 update, to 10 in that update and 14 in 2018 (range 0–347).ConclusionsMost Cochrane reviews get updated, however they are becoming more out-of-date over time. Updates have resulted in an overall rise in the number of included studies, although they only rarely lead to major changes in conclusion.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document