Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jan 11, 2026
Comparing Bibliometric Analysis Using PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science Databases
Published on: October 24, 2019
Developing and validating infant hedges for PubMed and Ovid MEDLINE: a Medical Library Association Pediatric
Lynn Kysh1, Zoë Baker2, Roxanne Bogucka3
1lkysh@ucdavis.edu, University of California-Davis, Davis, CA.
Insights
Librarians created and validated infant search hedges for PubMed and Ovid Medline. A simple keyword hedge demonstrated comparable sensitivity and specificity to more complex hedges, making it effective for clinical searching.
Area of Science:
- Medical Informatics
- Library Science
- Evidence-Based Practice
Background:
- Librarians developed and validated search hedges specifically for infant age populations (birth to 23 months).
- These search strategies were designed for use in both PubMed (National Library of Medicine) and Medline (OVID).
- The goal was to enhance support for evidence synthesis and clinical literature searching.
Purpose of the Study:
- To develop and validate sensitive search hedges for identifying infant-related literature.
- To compare the performance of developed hedges against existing built-in filters.
- To assess the effectiveness of different hedge structures (MeSH terms, keywords, field tags) for infant searches.
Main Methods:
- Four sensitive search hedges were created using terms for infants.
- Three hedges utilized identical MeSH terms and keywords but varied field tags; one was a simple keyword hedge.
- Performance was validated against a gold standard reference set using relative recall calculations, comparing hedges to a MeSH-based infant filter.
Main Results:
- In PubMed, similarly structured hedges achieved 83.2%-83.8% sensitivity and 88.2%-89.7% specificity.
- The simple keyword hedge in PubMed showed 83.5% sensitivity and 89.7% specificity.
- The built-in PubMed filter yielded 70.1% sensitivity and 96.2% specificity.
- Similar performance ranges were observed in Ovid Medline for the hedges, with the simple keyword hedge at 82.9% sensitivity and 90.8% specificity.
- The Ovid Medline filter demonstrated 69.6% sensitivity and 96.2% specificity.
Conclusions:
- Variation in field tags did not significantly impact hedge performance (sensitivity and specificity).
- The built-in filter prioritized specificity over sensitivity, as expected.
- The simple keyword hedge performed comparably to more complex hedges, proving effective for quick clinical searches.
- For comprehensive evidence synthesis, more sensitive infant hedges are recommended over the simple keyword hedge or the built-in filter.
Background:
To support evidence synthesis and clinical searching, a team of librarians developed and validated infant age (birth to 23 months) search hedges for PubMed (National Library of Medicine) and Medline (OVID).
Methods:
We developed four sensitive hedges by selecting terms that refer to infants. Three of the hedges had identical MeSH terms and keywords but used different field tags, and the fourth was a simple keyword hedge. We compared our hedges to the built-in MeSH-based infant filter. We used relative recall calculations to validate each hedge's performance against a gold standard reference set.
Results:
In PubMed the similarly structured hedges performed in a range of 83.2%-83.8% sensitivity and 88.2%-89.7% specificity. The simple keyword hedge performed with an 83.5% sensitivity and 89.7% specificity. The filter generated a 70.1% sensitivity and 96.2% specificity. Similarly, in Ovid Medline, the set of similar hedges performed in a range of 82.9%-83.6% sensitivity and 88.1%-89.4% specificity. The simple keyword hedge performed with an 82.9% sensitivity and 90.8% specificity. The filter generated a 69.6% sensitivity and 96.2% specificity.
Discussion:
The variation in field tags did not provide a significant difference in the areas of sensitivity and specificity. The filter performed as expected with higher specificity rather than sensitivity. The simple keyword hedge performed better than anticipated with comparable sensitivity and specificity of the more complex hedges. When searching for infant population articles, the simple keyword search and filter work well for quick, clinical searching. For evidence synthesis, we recommend using one of the more sensitive infant hedges.
Related Concept Videos
02:33Hedgehog Signaling Pathway
01:22Healthcare Associated Infections II: Preventive Measures
The best practices for preventing healthcare-associated infections include hand hygiene, patient risk...
01:30Specialized Care Centers and Settings-II
Rural health centers are specialized care facilities in remote locations with very few medical personnel. The primary care providers who run the centers are mostly Registered Nurse Practitioners. Here, emergency treatment is provided to critically ill or injured patients before they are transferred to the closest hospital. Fortunately, due to advancement in technology, many rural healthcare facilities and professionals have easy access to diagnostic and treatment...
01:28Preclinical Development: Overview
01:27Nursing Clinical Information System
A Nursing Clinical Information System (NCIS) is a specialized type of healthcare information system tailored to meet the unique needs of nursing practice. It incorporates the principles of nursing informatics to streamline information management and improve the quality of care delivery.
Critical attributes of NCIS include:
00:55Parental Care