MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2394641685

Developing optimal search strategies for detecting clinically relevant qualitative studies in MEDLINE.

2004· article· en· W2394641685 on OpenAlexaff
Sharon Wong, Nancy L Wilczynski, R. Brian Haynes

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMEDLINEQualitative researchRecallMedicineGold standard (test)Matching (statistics)Health careComputer scienceInformation retrievalPsychologyPathologyCognitive psychology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The growing interest in qualitative research within the evidence based practice framework highlights the need for accurate search strategies to enhance the retrieval of qualitative studies. To date, little work has been done on developing optimal search filters for retrieving qualitative studies. The current study extends our earlier work, on developing optimal search strategies, to include qualitative studies. OBJECTIVE: To develop optimal search strategies for detecting clinically relevant qualitative studies in MEDLINE in the publishing year 2000. DESIGN: Comparison of the retrieval performance of methodologic search strategies in MEDLINE with a manual review ("gold standard") of each article for each issue of 161 core health care journals for the year 2000. METHODS: 6 experienced research assistants who had been trained and intensively calibrated reviewed all issues of 161 journals for the publishing year 2000. Each article was systematically classified for "format" (whether it was an original study, review article, general article, or case report), "interest" (whether or not it was of interest to the health care of humans), and "purpose" (whether it pertained to therapy, diagnosis, prognosis, causation, economics, costs, or clinical prediction; was of a qualitative nature; or was about something else). Search strategies were developed for all purpose categories, including qualitative studies. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The sensitivity (recall), specificity, precision, and accuracy of single and combinations of search terms. RESULTS: 49,028 articles were identified after matching the hand search records with the data downloaded from MEDLINE, of which 366 (0.75%) were classified as qualitative. Combinations of search terms reached peak sensitivities of 95%. Compared with the best single term, a three-term strategy increased sensitivity for qualitative studies by 23.6% (absolute increase), but with some loss of specificity when sensitivity was maximized. When search terms were combined to optimize sensitivity and specificity, both these values peaked above 90%. CONCLUSION: Several search strategies can achieve high performance in retrieving qualitative studies from MEDLINE.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.244
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.166
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.636
Threshold uncertainty score0.841

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2440.166
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.935
GPT teacher head0.651
Teacher spread0.284 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations203
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsFrench-language works237,207