Optimal search strategies for detecting cost and economic studies in EMBASE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Economic evaluations in the medical literature compare competing diagnosis or treatment methods for their use of resources and their expected outcomes. The best evidence currently available from research regarding both cost and economic comparisons will continue to expand as this type of information becomes more important in today's clinical practice. Researchers and clinicians need quick, reliable ways to access this information. A key source of this type of information is large bibliographic databases such as EMBASE. The objective of this study was to develop search strategies that optimize the retrieval of health costs and economics studies from EMBASE. METHODS: We conducted an analytic survey, comparing hand searches of journals with retrievals from EMBASE for candidate search terms and combinations. 6 research assistants read all issues of 55 journals indexed by EMBASE for the publishing year 2000. We rated all articles using purpose and quality indicators and categorized them into clinically relevant original studies, review articles, general papers, or case reports. The original and review articles were then categorized for purpose (i.e., cost and economics and other clinical topics) and depending on the purpose as 'pass' or 'fail' for methodologic rigor. Candidate search strategies were developed for economic and cost studies, then run in the 55 EMBASE journals, the retrievals being compared with the hand search data. The sensitivity, specificity, precision, and accuracy of the search strategies were calculated. RESULTS: Combinations of search terms for detecting both cost and economic studies attained levels of 100% sensitivity with specificity levels of 92.9% and 92.3% respectively. When maximizing for both sensitivity and specificity, the combination of terms for detecting cost studies (sensitivity) increased 2.2% over the single term but at a slight decrease in specificity of 0.9%. The maximized combination of terms for economic studies saw no change in sensitivity from the single term and only a 0.1% increase in specificity. CONCLUSION: Selected terms have excellent performance in the retrieval of studies of health costs and economics from EMBASE.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.199 | 0.656 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.083 | 0.052 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.004 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".