Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Identifying relevant studies for systematic reviews

K Dickersin1, R Scherer, C Lefebvre

  • 1Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore 21201.

BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.)
|November 12, 1994
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

First Evidence of Solar Neutrino Interactions on ^{13}C.

Physical review letters·2026
Same author

Measurement of Reactor Antineutrino Oscillation at SNO.

Physical review letters·2025
Same author

Cytogenetics in the management of mature B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphomas: Guidelines from the Groupe Francophone de Cytogénétique Hematologique (GFCH).

Current research in translational medicine·2023
Same author

Plant stem cell extract from Coffea canephora shows antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, and skin regenerative properties mediated by suppression of nuclear factor-κB.

Brazilian journal of medical and biological research = Revista brasileira de pesquisas medicas e biologicas·2023
Same author

IGMPlot: A program to identify, characterize, and quantify molecular interactions.

Journal of computational chemistry·2023
Same author

Measurement of the N170 during facial neuromuscular electrical stimulation (fNMES).

Journal of neuroscience methods·2023
Same journal

The UK's visa brake will limit Sudan's healthcare recovery.

BMJ (Clinical research ed.)·2026
Same journal

Miscarriage: poor access to care leaves thousands of UK women desperately searching for answers.

BMJ (Clinical research ed.)·2026
Same journal

Amos maternity review: Doctors must work differently as units "no longer fit for purpose," but report is dogged by controversy.

BMJ (Clinical research ed.)·2026
Same journal

WHO's misguided push for complementary and alternative medicine.

BMJ (Clinical research ed.)·2026
Same journal

Why the GMC should not retain a right of appeal against MPTS decisions.

BMJ (Clinical research ed.)·2026
Same journal

Resident doctors' strikes end with latest pay offer accepted.

BMJ (Clinical research ed.)·2026
See all related articles

Searching Medline for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) shows improved indexing but still unsatisfactory sensitivity. A system to register known RCTs is needed for better discoverability in medical literature databases.

Area of Science:

  • Medical Informatics
  • Information Retrieval
  • Clinical Trial Research

Background:

  • Medline is a primary database for biomedical literature.
  • Accurate retrieval of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) is crucial for evidence-based medicine.
  • Previous studies have assessed Medline's effectiveness in identifying RCTs.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To evaluate the sensitivity and precision of Medline searches for identifying randomized clinical trials (RCTs).
  • To assess the impact of different indexing strategies on search performance.
  • To identify areas for improvement in Medline's search capabilities for RCTs.

Main Methods:

  • Compared Medline search results against a gold standard of known ophthalmology RCTs published in 1988.
  • Conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of similar studies across various medical fields.

Related Experiment Videos

  • Calculated sensitivity (recall) and precision for each search and combined results using weighted means.

    • Main Results:

    • Sensitivity for ophthalmology RCTs ranged from 82% to 88% depending on the gold standard used.
    • Weighted mean sensitivity across all studies varied: 51% (any journal), 77% (Medline-indexed journals), and 63% (selected Medline journals).
    • Weighted mean precision was low at 8% (median 32.5%), with many searches not utilizing free text or truncation.

    Conclusions:

    • Despite improvements in Medline indexing terms, the sensitivity for retrieving RCTs remains inadequate.
    • A centralized registration system for clinical trials is recommended.
    • Retrospective tagging of Medline entries and inclusion of pre-1966 and non-indexed trials are suggested.