Abstract
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.
Highlights
Health sciences librarians are routinely involved in formulating focused questions and searching the literature for the best available evidence
A comparison was made of the results found using the National Library of Medicine (NLM) Systematic Reviews subject subset hedges in OvidSP MEDLINE and EBSCO MEDLINE compared with the retrieval found using PubMed
To be able to compare and translate filters written for Ovid MEDLINE or PubMed, a comparison was made of the syntaxes by which search strings involving search fields or MeSH headings were entered for each database
Summary
Health sciences librarians are routinely involved in formulating focused questions and searching the literature for the best available evidence. Doing this requires a thorough knowledge of the major biomedical databases, the syntax of the particular platform being used, and the evidence-based medicine (EBM) limits and methodological search filters that are available in these databases. Methodological evidence-based search filters or ‘‘hedges’’ came about in the development of search techniques for clinically sound reports for various clinical topics and have become extremely important in biomedical searching. They have been referred to by Bachmann et al as a ‘‘cornerstone in information retrieval in evidence-based practice’’ [2]. Alternate terms that have been used interchangeably include hedges, optimal search strategies, optimal search filters, search strategies, quality filters, search filters, or clinical queries [4]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: Journal of the Canadian Health Libraries Association / Journal de l'Association des bibliothèques de la santé du Canada
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
