Reporting methodological search filter performance comparisons: a literature review. (1st August 2014)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Harbour, Jennifer; Fraser, Cynthia; Lefebvre, Carol; Glanville, Julie; Beale, Sophie; Boachie, Charles; Duffy, Steven; McCool, Rachael; Smith, Lynne
• Is Part Of: Health information and libraries journal. Volume 31:Number 3(2014:Sep.)
• Page Start: 176
• Page End: 194
• Publication Date: 2014-08-01
• Subjects: Medical libraries -- Periodicals; Public health libraries -- Periodicals; Life sciences libraries -- Periodicals; Medical libraries -- Great Britain -- Periodicals; Public health libraries -- Great Britain -- Periodicals; Information science -- Periodicals; 026.61094105
• DOI: 10.1111/hir.12070
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1471-1834

Abstract

<abstract abstract-type="main" id="hir12070-abs-0001"> <title>Abstract</title> <sec id="hir12070-sec-0001" sec-type="section"> <title>Background</title> <p>Methodological search filters are tools for retrieving database records reporting studies which use a specific research method. Choosing a filter is likely to be based on filter performance data. This review examines which measures are reported, and the way that filter performance is presented, in filter comparisons.</p> </sec> <sec id="hir12070-sec-0002" sec-type="section"> <title>Methods</title> <p>Studies were identified from the current content and pending update (2010) of a filter website. Eligible studies compared two or more methodological search filters designed to identify randomised controlled trials, diagnostic test accuracy studies, systematic reviews or economic evaluations.</p> </sec> <sec id="hir12070-sec-0003" sec-type="section"> <title>Results</title> <p>Eighteen studies met the inclusion criteria. The number of filters compared in a single study ranged from 2 to 38. The most commonly reported measures were sensitivity/recall and precision. All studies displayed results in tables and gave results as percentages or proportions. Two studies supplemented results tables with graphical displays of data: a bar graph of the proportion of retrieved and missed gold standard references per filter; a forest plot of the overall sensitivity and specificity of each filter.</p> </sec> <sec id="hir12070-sec-0004" sec-type="section"> <title>Conclusions</title> <p>Sensitivity/recall and precision are the most frequently reported performance measures. This review highlights the potential for presenting results in novel and innovative ways to aid filter selection.</p> </sec> </abstract>