Search strategies to identify information on adverse effects: a systematic review.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Objectives
The review evaluated studies of electronic database search strategies designed to retrieve adverse effects data for systematic reviews.Methods
Studies of adverse effects were located in ten databases as well as by checking references, hand-searching, searching citations, and contacting experts. Two reviewers screened the retrieved records for potentially relevant papers.Results
Five thousand three hundred thirteen citations were retrieved, yielding 19 studies designed to develop or evaluate adverse effect filters, of which 3 met the inclusion criteria. All 3 studies identified highly sensitive search strategies capable of retrieving over 95% of relevant records. However, 1 study did not evaluate precision, while the level of precision in the other 2 studies ranged from 0.8% to 2.8%. Methodological issues in these papers included the relatively small number of records, absence of a validation set of records for testing, and limited evaluation of precision.Conclusions
The results indicate the difficulty of achieving highly sensitive searches for information on adverse effects with a reasonable level of precision. Researchers who intend to locate studies on adverse effects should allow for the amount of resources and time required to conduct a highly sensitive search.
SUBMITTER: Golder S
PROVIDER: S-EPMC2670220 | biostudies-literature | 2009 Apr
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Search strategies to identify information on adverse effects: a systematic review.
Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA 20090401 2
<h4>Objectives</h4>The review evaluated studies of electronic database search strategies designed to retrieve adverse effects data for systematic reviews.<h4>Methods</h4>Studies of adverse effects were located in ten databases as well as by checking references, hand-searching, searching citations, and contacting experts. Two reviewers screened the retrieved records for potentially relevant papers.<h4>Results</h4>Five thousand three hundred thirteen citations were retrieved, yielding 19 studies d ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundResearch has indicated that adverse effects terms are increasingly prevalent in the title, abstract or indexing terms of articles that contain adverse drug effects data in MEDLINE and Embase. However, it is unknown whether adverse effects terms are present in the database records of articles that contain adverse effects data of medical devices, and thus, to what extent the development of an adverse effects search filter for medical devices may be feasible.MethodsA case study systematic review of a medical device was selected. The included studies from a systematic review of the safety of recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 (rhBMP-2) for spinal fusion were used in the analysis. For each included study, the corresponding database record on MEDLINE and Embase was assessed to measure the presence or absence of adverse effects terms in the title, abstract or indexing. The performance of each potential adverse effects search term was also measured and compared.ResultsThere were 82 publications (49 studies) included in the systematic review with 51 of these indexed on MEDLINE and 55 on Embase. Ninety-four percent (48/51) of the records on MEDLINE and 95% (52/55) of the records on Embase contained at least one adverse effects related search term. The wide variety of adverse effects terms included in the title, abstract or indexing of bibliographic records, and the lack of any individual high-performing search terms suggests that a combination of terms in different fields is required to identify adverse effects of medical devices. In addition, the most successful search terms differed from the most successful terms for identifying adverse drug effects.ConclusionsThe search filters currently available for adverse drug effects are not necessarily useful for searching adverse effects data of medical devices. The presence of adverse effects terms in the bibliographic records of articles on medical devices, however, indicates that combinations of adverse effects search terms may be useful in search strategies in MEDLINE and Embase. The results, therefore, suggest that not only a search filter for the adverse effects of medical devices is feasible, but also that it should be a research priority.
| S-EPMC4203467 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesErrors in search strategies negatively affect the quality and validity of systematic reviews. The primary objective of this study was to evaluate searches performed in MEDLINE/PubMed to identify errors and determine their effects on information retrieval.MethodsA PubMed search was conducted using the systematic review filter to identify articles that were published in January of 2018. Systematic reviews or meta-analyses were selected from a systematic search for literature containing reproducible and explicit search strategies in MEDLINE/PubMed. Data were extracted from these studies related to ten types of errors and to the terms and phrases search modes.ResultsThe study included 137 systematic reviews in which the number of search strategies containing some type of error was very high (92.7%). Errors that affected recall were the most frequent (78.1%), and the most common search errors involved missing terms in both natural language and controlled language and those related to Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) search terms and the non-retrieval of their more specific terms.ConclusionsTo improve the quality of searches and avoid errors, it is essential to plan the search strategy carefully, which includes consulting the MeSH database to identify the concepts and choose all appropriate terms, both descriptors and synonyms, and combining search techniques in the free-text and controlled-language fields, truncating the terms appropriately to retrieve all their variants.
| S-EPMC6466507 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Prognosis research is on the rise, its importance recognised because chronic health conditions and diseases are increasingly common and costly. Prognosis systematic reviews are needed to collate and synthesise these research findings, especially to help inform effective clinical decision-making and healthcare policy. A detailed, comprehensive search strategy is central to any systematic review. However, within prognosis research, this is challenging due to poor reporting and inconsistent use of available indexing terms in electronic databases. Whilst many published search filters exist for finding clinical trials, this is not the case for prognosis studies. This systematic review aims to identify and compare existing methodological filters developed and evaluated to identify prognosis studies of any of the three main types: overall prognosis, prognostic factors, and prognostic [risk prediction] models.Primary studies reporting the development and/or evaluation of methodological search filters to retrieve any type of prognosis study will be included in this systematic review. Multiple electronic bibliographic databases will be searched, grey literature will be sought from relevant organisations and websites, experts will be contacted, and citation tracking of key papers and reference list checking of all included papers will be undertaken. Titles will be screened by one person, and abstracts and full articles will be reviewed for inclusion independently by two reviewers. Data extraction and quality assessment will also be undertaken independently by two reviewers with disagreements resolved by discussion or by a third reviewer if necessary. Filters' characteristics and performance metrics reported in the included studies will be extracted and tabulated. To enable comparisons, filters will be grouped according to database, platform, type of prognosis study, and type of filter for which it was intended.This systematic review will identify all existing validated prognosis search filters and synthesise evidence about their applicability and performance. These findings will identify if current filters provide a proficient means of searching electronic bibliographic databases or if further prognosis filters are needed and can feasibly be developed for systematic searches of prognosis studies.
| S-EPMC5399431 | biostudies-other
Project description:BACKGROUND:Healthcare information professionals play a key role in closing the knowledge gap between medical research and clinical practice. Their work involves meticulous searching of literature databases using complex search strategies that can consist of hundreds of keywords, operators, and ontology terms. This process is prone to error and can lead to inefficiency and bias if performed incorrectly. OBJECTIVE:The aim of this study was to investigate the search behavior of healthcare information professionals, uncovering their needs, goals, and requirements for information retrieval systems. METHODS:A survey was distributed to healthcare information professionals via professional association email discussion lists. It investigated the search tasks they undertake, their techniques for search strategy formulation, their approaches to evaluating search results, and their preferred functionality for searching library-style databases. The popular literature search system PubMed was then evaluated to determine the extent to which their needs were met. RESULTS:The 107 respondents indicated that their information retrieval process relied on the use of complex, repeatable, and transparent search strategies. On average it took 60 minutes to formulate a search strategy, with a search task taking 4 hours and consisting of 15 strategy lines. Respondents reviewed a median of 175 results per search task, far more than they would ideally like (100). The most desired features of a search system were merging search queries and combining search results. CONCLUSIONS:Healthcare information professionals routinely address some of the most challenging information retrieval problems of any profession. However, their needs are not fully supported by current literature search systems and there is demand for improved functionality, in particular regarding the development and management of search strategies.
| S-EPMC5643841 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThis systematic review aims to summarise available patient-reported questionnaires to detect adverse drug reactions (ADRs) that can be utilised by healthcare professionals in clinical practice and to summarise the psychometric properties (validity, reliability, and responsiveness) of the questionnaires.MethodsA systematic literature search was conducted using Medline, Pubmed, Embase, and Emcare databases to screen for articles published between January 2000 and July 2020. Data items regarding validity, reliability, and responsiveness were extracted independently by two authors. The methodological quality was assessed using the COSMIN (Consensus-Based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments) checklist.ResultsA total of 1563 unique article titles were identified after removing duplicates. Following shortlisting of relevant articles, 19 patient-reported ADR questionnaires were identified. Questionnaires most commonly focused on mental health medications (42.1%, n = 8), followed by general questionnaires applicable to any medication (21.1%, n = 4). Many questionnaires did not report assessing the validity and reliability of the measurement tool. For example, only 11 questionnaires (58%) mentioned assessing content validity, in addition to criterion or construct testing.ConclusionThis systematic review summarised the available patient-reported questionnaires that can be used in research and clinical practice to identify ADRs. Results of this systematic review highlight the need for more robust validity and reliability testing when developing patient-reported ADR questionnaires.
| S-EPMC8624083 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe therapeutic use of cannabis and cannabis-based medicines raises safety concerns for patients, clinicians, policy-makers, insurers, researchers and regulators. Although the efficacy of cannabinoids is being increasingly demonstrated in randomized controlled trials, most safety information comes from studies of recreational use.MethodsWe performed a systematic review of safety studies of medical cannabinoids published over the past 40 years to create an evidence base for cannabis-related adverse events and to facilitate future cannabis research initiatives. We critically evaluated the quality of published studies with a view to identifying ways to improve future studies.ResultsA total of 321 articles were eligible for evaluation. After excluding those that focused on recreational cannabis use, we included 31 studies (23 randomized controlled trials and 8 observational studies) of medical cannabis use in our analysis. In the 23 randomized controlled trials, the median duration of cannabinoid exposure was 2 weeks (range 8 hours to 12 months). A total of 4779 adverse events were reported among participants assigned to the intervention. Most (4615 [96.6%]) were not serious. Of the 164 serious adverse events, the most common was relapse of multiple sclerosis (21 events [12.8%]), vomiting (16 events [9.8%]) and urinary tract infection (15 events [9.1%]). The rate of nonserious adverse events was higher among participants assigned to medical cannabinoids than among controls (rate ratio [RR] 1.86, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.57-2.21); the rates of serious adverse events did not differ significantly between these 2 groups (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.78-1.39). Dizziness was the most commonly reported nonserious adverse event (714 events [15.5%]) among people exposed to cannabinoids.InterpretationShort-term use of existing medical cannabinoids appeared to increase the risk of nonserious adverse events. The risks associated with long-term use were poorly characterized in published clinical trials and observational studies. High-quality trials of long-term exposure are required to further characterize safety issues related to the use of medical cannabinoids.
| S-EPMC2413308 | biostudies-literature
Project description: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.
| S-EPMC1488863 | biostudies-other
Project description:BACKGROUND:Breastfeeding has many benefits for newborns, mothers, and the wider society. The World Health Organization recommends mothers to feed newborns exclusively with breastmilk for the first 6 months after birth, but breastfeeding rates in many countries fail to align with the recommendations because of various barriers. Breastfeeding success is associated with a number of determinants, such as self-efficacy, intention to breastfeed, and attitudes toward breastfeeding. Information and communication technology (ICT) has been leveraged to support breastfeeding by means of improving knowledge or providing practical supports in different maternal stages. Previous reviews have examined and summarized the effectiveness and credibility of interventions; however, no review has been done from a human-computer interaction perspective that is concerned with novel interaction techniques and the perspective of end users. OBJECTIVE:The objective of this review was to provide a comprehensive overview of existing digital interventions that support breastfeeding by investigating systems' objective, technology design, validation process, and quality attributes, both in terms of clinical parameters as well as usability and user experience. METHODS:A systematic search was conducted in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines in the following libraries: PubMed, Science Direct, Association for Computing Machinery Digital Library (ACM Digital Library), and Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Xplore (IEEE Xplore). RESULTS:A total of 35 papers discussing 30 interventions were included. The main goals of these interventions were organized into 4 categories: breastfeeding education (n=12), breastfeeding promotion (n=8), communication support (n=6), and daily practical support (n=4). Of the interventions, 13 target mothers in the postnatal period. Most interventions come in forms of client communication systems (n=18), which frequently leverage Web technologies, text message, and mobile apps to provide breastfeeding support. Systems predominantly focus on mothers; validation strategies were rather heterogeneous, with 12 user studies concerning usability and user experience and 18 clinical validation studies focusing on the effects of the interventions on breastfeeding determinants; 5 papers did not report results. Generally, straightforward systems (eg, communication tools or Web-based solutions) seem to be more effective than complex interventions (eg, games). CONCLUSIONS:Existing information and communication systems offer effective means of improving breastfeeding outcomes, but they do not address all relevant periods in parenthood (eg, the antenatal period) and often do not involve important stakeholders, such as partners. There is an opportunity to leverage more complex technical systems to open up avenues for the broader design of ICT to support breastfeeding; however, considering evaluation outcomes of existing support systems of higher complexity, such systems need to be designed with care.
| S-EPMC6818436 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundVarious types of framing can influence risk perceptions, which may have an impact on treatment decisions and adherence. One way of framing is the use of verbal terms in communicating the probabilities of treatment effects. We systematically reviewed the comparative effects of words versus numbers in communicating the probability of adverse effects to consumers in written health information.MethodsNine electronic databases were searched up to November 2012. Teams of two reviewers independently assessed studies.Inclusion criteriarandomised controlled trials; verbal versus numerical presentation; context: written consumer health information.ResultsTen trials were included. Participants perceived probabilities presented in verbal terms as higher than in numeric terms: commonly used verbal descriptors systematically led to an overestimation of the absolute risk of adverse effects (Range of means: 3% - 54%). Numbers also led to an overestimation of probabilities, but the overestimation was smaller (2% - 20%). The difference in means ranged from 3.8% to 45.9%, with all but one comparison showing significant results. Use of numbers increased satisfaction with the information (MD: 0.48 [CI: 0.32 to 0.63], p < 0.00001, I2 = 0%) and likelihood of medication use (MD for very common side effects: 1.45 [CI: 0.78 to 2.11], p = 0.0001, I2 = 68%; MD for common side effects: 0.90 [CI: 0.61 to 1.19], p < 0.00001, I2 = 1%; MD for rare side effects: 0.39 [0.02 to 0.76], p = 0.04, I2 = not applicable). Outcomes were measured on a 6-point Likert scale, suggesting small to moderate effects.ConclusionsVerbal descriptors including "common", "uncommon" and "rare" lead to an overestimation of the probability of adverse effects compared to numerical information, if used as previously suggested by the European Commission. Numbers result in more accurate estimates and increase satisfaction and likelihood of medication use. Our review suggests that providers of consumer health information should quantify treatment effects numerically. Future research should focus on the impact of personal and contextual factors, use representative samples or be conducted in real life settings, measure behavioral outcomes and address whether benefit information can be described verbally.
| S-EPMC4153005 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Developing a search strategy for use in a systematic review is a time-consuming process requiring construction of detailed search strings using complicated syntax, followed by iterative fine-tuning and trial-and-error testing of these strings in online biomedical search engines.Building upon limitations of existing online-only search builders, a user-friendly computer-based tool was created to expedite search strategy development as part of production of a systematic review.Search Builder 1.0 is a Microsoft Excel®-based tool that automatically assembles search strategy text strings for PubMed (www.pubmed.com) and Embase (www.embase.com), based on a list of user-defined search terms and preferences. With the click of a button, Search Builder 1.0 automatically populates the syntax needed for functional search strings, and copies the string to the clipboard for pasting into Pubmed or Embase. The offline file-based interface of Search Builder 1.0 also allows for searches to be easily shared and saved for future reference.This novel, user-friendly tool can save considerable time and streamline a cumbersome step in the systematic review process.
| S-EPMC4848107 | biostudies-literature