Development of a methodological PubMed search filter for finding studies on measurement properties of measurement instruments.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Terwee CB
PROVIDER: S-EPMC2744791 | biostudies-other | 2009 Oct
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other
Similar Datasets
Project description:BACKGROUND:Integrated care is an increasingly important principle for organising healthcare. Integrated care models show promise in reducing resource wastage and service fragmentation whilst improving the accessibility, patient-centredness and quality of care for patients. Those needing reliable access to the growing research evidence base for integrated care can be frustrated by search challenges reflective of the topic's complexity. The aim of this study is to report the empirical development and validation of two search filters for rapid and effective retrieval of integrated care evidence in PubMed. One filter is optimised for recall and the other for precision. METHODS:An Expert Advisory Group comprising international integrated care experts guided the study. A gold standard test set of citations was formed from screening Handbook Integrated Care chapter references for relevance. This set was divided into a Term Identification Set (20%) for determining candidate terms using frequency analysis; a Filter Development Set (40%) for testing performance of term combinations; and a Filter Validation Set (40%) reserved for confirming final filter performance. In developing the high recall filter, recall was steadily increased while maintaining precision at ?50%. Similarly, the high precision filter sought to maximise precision while keeping recall ?50%. For each term combination tested, an approximation of precision was obtained by reviewing the first 100 citations retrieved in Medline for relevance. RESULTS:The gold standard set comprised 534 citations. The search filter optimised for recall ('Broad Integrated Care Search') achieved 86.0-88.3% recall with corresponding low precision (47-53%). The search filter optimised for precise searching ('Narrow Integrated Care Search') demonstrated precision of 73-95% with recall reduced to between 55.9 and 59.8%. These filters are now available as one-click URL hyperlinks in the website of International Foundation for Integrated Care. CONCLUSIONS:The Broad and Narrow Integrated Care Search filters provide potential users, such as policy makers and researchers, seamless, reliable and ongoing access to integrated care evidence for decision making. These filters were developed according to a rigorous and transparent methodology designed to circumvent the challenges of information retrieval posed by this complex, multifaceted topic.
| S-EPMC6971984 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThe research attempted to develop search filters for biomedical literature databases that improve retrieval of studies of clinical relevance for the nursing and rehabilitation professions.MethodsDiagnostic testing framework compared machine-culled and practitioner-nominated search terms with a hand-tagged clinical literature database.ResultsWe were unable to: (1) develop filters for nursing, likely because of the overlapping and expanding scope of practice for nurses in comparison with medical professionals, or (2) develop filters for rehabilitation, because of its broad scope and the profession's multifaceted understanding of "health and ability."ConclusionsWe found limitations on search filter development for these health professions: nursing and rehabilitation.
| S-EPMC4722641 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe internet is now a major source of health information. With the growth of internet users, eHealth literacy has emerged as a new concept for digital health care. Therefore, health professionals need to consider the eHealth literacy of consumers when providing care utilizing digital health technologies.ObjectiveThis study aimed to identify currently available eHealth literacy instruments and evaluate their measurement properties to provide robust evidence to researchers and clinicians who are selecting an eHealth literacy instrument.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of self-reported eHealth literacy instruments by applying the updated COSMIN (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments) methodology.ResultsThis study included 7 instruments from 41 articles describing 57 psychometric studies, as identified in 4 databases (PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, and PsycInfo). No eHealth literacy instrument provided evidence for all measurement properties. The eHealth literacy scale (eHEALS) was originally developed with a single-factor structure under the definition of eHealth literacy before the rise of social media and the mobile web. That instrument was evaluated in 18 different languages and 26 countries, involving diverse populations. However, various other factor structures were exhibited: 7 types of two-factor structures, 3 types of three-factor structures, and 1 bifactor structure. The transactional eHealth literacy instrument (TeHLI) was developed to reflect the broader concept of eHealth literacy and was demonstrated to have a sufficient low-quality and very low-quality evidence for content validity (relevance, comprehensiveness, and comprehensibility) and sufficient high-quality evidence for structural validity and internal consistency; however, that instrument has rarely been evaluated.ConclusionsThe eHealth literacy scale was the most frequently investigated instrument. However, it is strongly recommended that the instrument's content be updated to reflect recent advancements in digital health technologies. In addition, the transactional eHealth literacy instrument needs improvements in content validity and further psychometric studies to increase the credibility of its synthesized evidence.
| S-EPMC8663713 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimThe aim of this study was to summarize and evaluate the empirical evidence on the measurement properties of diaper dermatitis (DD) measurement instruments in children.DesignSystematic review.MethodsMEDLINE, CINAHL and EMBASE were systematically searched until 14 June 2021. Citation searching was conducted in Scopus. The risk of bias, the reported measurement properties and the quality of evidence were evaluated using the COSMIN framework. The reporting follows the PRISMA 2020 statement.ResultsWe identified 1200 records in the databases and 108 records during citation searching and included four studies describing three measurement instruments for DD in children and their measurement properties. We considered the content validity inconsistent for all three instruments. The study authors reported internal consistency, reliability and construct validity for one instrument. We rated the quality of evidence from very low to moderate.
| S-EPMC10416076 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Although many instruments are used to assess the families of people with diabetes, their measurement properties have not been systematically reviewed. We aimed to identify and evaluate the psychometric properties of the instruments used to assess family functioning in adults with diabetes.MethodsA systematic literature review, according to the JBI systematic reviews of measurement properties, was conducted using different databases, including gray literature. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021239733. Two independent reviewers searched, screened, and assessed the risk of bias among the articles according to the COSMIN methodology. The quality of each included instrument was assessed using the updated criteria for good measurement properties.ResultsEighty-one studies were included, and thirty-one eligible instruments were identified. The psychometric properties frequently assessed were structural validity, internal consistency, and construct validity.ConclusionsAlthough 31 instruments were included, none of their psychometric properties were scored as "very good". From the instruments scored as adequate on development and content validity, five stood out for their quality appraisal.. The development of new instruments is not recommended. More studies should be conducted on the existing instruments to assess the less commonly evaluated psychometric properties. Using valid instruments to develop and evaluate interventions is essential to promote health literacy and the effectiveness of diabetes management.
| S-EPMC9859216 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundA plethora of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) are being used in port wine stain (PWS) studies. It is currently unclear how valid, responsive, and reliable these are.ObjectivesThe aim of this systematic review was to appraise the content validity and other measurement properties of OMIs for PWS treatment to identify the most appropriate instruments and future research priorities.MethodsThis study was performed using the updated Consensus-Based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) methodology and adhered to PRISMA guidelines. Comprehensive searches in Medline and Embase were performed. Studies in which an OMI for PWS patients was developed or its measurement properties were evaluated were included. Two investigators independently extracted data and assessed the quality of included studies and instruments to perform qualitative synthesis of the evidence.ResultsIn total, 1,034 articles were screened, and 77 full-text articles were reviewed. A total of 8 studies were included that reported on 6 physician-reported OMIs of clinical improvement and 6 parent- or patient-reported OMIs of life impact, of which 3 for health-related quality of life and 1 for perceived stigmatization. Overall, the quality of OMI development was inadequate (63%) or doubtful (37%). Each instrument has undergone a very limited evaluation in PWS patients. No content validity studies were performed. The quality of evidence for content validity was very low (78%), low (15%), or moderate (7%), with sufficient comprehensibility, mostly sufficient comprehensiveness, and mixed relevance. No studies on responsiveness, minimal important change, and cross-cultural validity were retrieved. There was moderate- to very low-quality evidence for sufficient inter-rater reliability for some clinical PWS OMIs. Internal consistency and measurement error were indeterminate in all studies.ConclusionsThere was insufficient evidence to properly guide outcome selection. Additional assessment of the measurement properties of OMIs is needed, preferentially guided by a core domain set tailored to PWS.
| S-EPMC8117375 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Health inequalities, worse health associated with social and economic disadvantage, are reported by a minority of research articles. Locating these studies when conducting an equity-focused systematic review is challenging due to a deficit in standardised terminology, indexing, and lack of validated search filters. Current reporting guidelines recommend not applying filters, meaning that increased resources are needed at the screening stage. METHODS:We aimed to design and test search filters to locate studies that reported outcomes by a social determinant of health. We developed and expanded a 'specific terms strategy' using keywords and subject headings compiled from recent systematic reviews that applied an equity filter. A 'non-specific strategy' was compiled from phrases used to describe equity analyses that were reported in titles and abstracts, and related subject headings. Gold standard evaluation and validation sets were compiled. The filters were developed in MEDLINE, adapted for Embase and tested in both. We set a target of 0.90 sensitivity (95% CI; 0.84, 0.94) in retrieving 150 gold standard validation papers. We noted the reduction in the number needed to screen in a proposed equity-focused systematic review and the proportion of equity-focused reviews we assessed in the project that applied an equity filter to their search strategy. RESULTS:The specific terms strategy filtered out 93-95% of all records, and retrieved a validation set of articles with a sensitivity of 0.84 in MEDLINE (0.77, 0.89), and 0.87 (0.81, 0.92) in Embase. When combined (Boolean 'OR') with the non-specific strategy sensitivity was 0.92 (0.86, 0.96) in MEDLINE (Embase 0.94; 0.89, 0.97). The number needed to screen was reduced by 77% by applying the specific terms strategy, and by 59.7% (MEDLINE) and 63.5% (Embase) by applying the combined strategy. Eighty-one per cent of systematic reviews filtered studies by equity. CONCLUSIONS:A combined approach of using specific and non-specific terms is recommended if systematic reviewers wish to filter studies for reporting outcomes by social determinants. Future research should concentrate on the indexing standardisation for equity studies and further development and testing of both specific and non-specific terms for accurate study retrieval.
| S-EPMC6186133 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PubMed is a free search engine for biomedical literature accessed by millions of users from around the world each day. With the rapid growth of biomedical literature-about two articles are added every minute on average-finding and retrieving the most relevant papers for a given query is increasingly challenging. We present Best Match, a new relevance search algorithm for PubMed that leverages the intelligence of our users and cutting-edge machine-learning technology as an alternative to the traditional date sort order. The Best Match algorithm is trained with past user searches with dozens of relevance-ranking signals (factors), the most important being the past usage of an article, publication date, relevance score, and type of article. This new algorithm demonstrates state-of-the-art retrieval performance in benchmarking experiments as well as an improved user experience in real-world testing (over 20% increase in user click-through rate). Since its deployment in June 2017, we have observed a significant increase (60%) in PubMed searches with relevance sort order: it now assists millions of PubMed searches each week. In this work, we hope to increase the awareness and transparency of this new relevance sort option for PubMed users, enabling them to retrieve information more effectively.
| S-EPMC6112631 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundOver the last three decades, various instruments were developed and employed to assess medical professionalism, but their measurement properties have yet to be fully evaluated. This study aimed to systematically evaluate these instruments' measurement properties and the methodological quality of their related studies within a universally acceptable standardized framework and then provide corresponding recommendations.MethodsA systematic search of the electronic databases PubMed, Web of Science, and PsycINFO was conducted to collect studies published from 1990-2015. After screening titles, abstracts, and full texts for eligibility, the articles included in this study were classified according to their respective instrument's usage. A two-phase assessment was conducted: 1) methodological quality was assessed by following the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist; and 2) the quality of measurement properties was assessed according to Terwee's criteria. Results were integrated using best-evidence synthesis to look for recommendable instruments.ResultsAfter screening 2,959 records, 74 instruments from 80 existing studies were included. The overall methodological quality of these studies was unsatisfactory, with reasons including but not limited to unknown missing data, inadequate sample sizes, and vague hypotheses. Content validity, cross-cultural validity, and criterion validity were either unreported or negative ratings in most studies. Based on best-evidence synthesis, three instruments were recommended: Hisar's instrument for nursing students, Nurse Practitioners' Roles and Competencies Scale, and Perceived Faculty Competency Inventory.ConclusionAlthough instruments measuring medical professionalism are diverse, only a limited number of studies were methodologically sound. Future studies should give priority to systematically improving the performance of existing instruments and to longitudinal studies.
| S-EPMC5428933 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundWhiplash is a common traumatic cervical injury which is most often a consequence of rear-end motor vehicle accidents. It has been estimated that up to 50% of the whiplash patients suffer from chronic symptoms, resulting in extensive individual and societal burden. Several measurement instruments are used for initial assessment of whiplash and evaluation of response to treatment. However, a comprehensive assessment of the performance of these measures is lacking. Furthermore, there is no consensus on the most relevant outcome domains and their corresponding measurement instruments of choice. This systematic review aims to identify, describe, and critically appraise the performance properties of health-related measurement instruments in whiplash population.MethodsThe following literature databases will be searched from their date of establishment: PubMed, Embase®, MEDLINE, CINAHL Complete, PsycINFO, and HAPI. All original articles evaluating the reliability, validity, responsiveness, and feasibility of health-related measurement instruments in whiplash will be included, without additional restriction on their intended use, source of data, and structure. Risk of bias will be assessed using the COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist. Findings of the studies will be judged against the criteria for good measurement properties, and results from all studies will be qualitatively summarized to generate an overall quality of findings. Overall quality of evidence will be determined using a modified GRADE approach, which will be used in conjunction with the overall quality of results for generation of recommendations. Two reviewers will perform all steps of the review independently. Discrepancies will be discussed between the reviewers, and in case of remaining disagreement, the senior reviewer will make the final decision.DiscussionThis systematic review will summarize the body of literature on health-related measurement instruments in whiplash, aiming to facilitate the selection of high-quality measurement instrument for researchers and physicians. Findings of this study will guide the ongoing efforts for development of a core outcome set.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO reference number CRD42018070901.
| S-EPMC6688369 | biostudies-literature