Development of a search strategy for an Evidence Based retrieval service

Gah Juan Ho, Su May Liew, Chirk Jenn Ng, Ranita Hisham Shunmugam, Paul Glasziou

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

12 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Physicians are often encouraged to locate answers for their clinical queries via an evidence-based literature search approach. The methods used are often not clearly specified. Inappropriate search strategies, time constraint and contradictory information complicate evidence retrieval.

AIMS: Our study aimed to develop a search strategy to answer clinical queries among physicians in a primary care setting.

METHODS: Six clinical questions of different medical conditions seen in primary care were formulated. A series of experimental searches to answer each question was conducted on 3 commonly advocated medical databases. We compared search results from a PICO (patients, intervention, comparison, outcome) framework for questions using different combinations of PICO elements. We also compared outcomes from doing searches using text words, Medical Subject Headings (MeSH), or a combination of both. All searches were documented using screenshots and saved search strategies.

RESULTS: Answers to all 6 questions using the PICO framework were found. A higher number of systematic reviews were obtained using a 2 PICO element search compared to a 4 element search. A more optimal choice of search is a combination of both text words and MeSH terms. Despite searching using the Systematic Review filter, many non-systematic reviews or narrative reviews were found in PubMed. There was poor overlap between outcomes of searches using different databases. The duration of search and screening for the 6 questions ranged from 1 to 4 hours.

CONCLUSION: This strategy has been shown to be feasible and can provide evidence to doctors' clinical questions. It has the potential to be incorporated into an interventional study to determine the impact of an online evidence retrieval system.

Original languageEnglish
Article numbere0167170
Pages (from-to)e0167170
JournalPLoS One
Volume11
Issue number12
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Dec 2016

Fingerprint

physicians
Medical Subject Headings
systematic review
Primary Health Care
Databases
Physicians
PubMed
Screening
screening
duration
methodology

Cite this

Ho, G. J., Liew, S. M., Ng, C. J., Hisham Shunmugam, R., & Glasziou, P. (2016). Development of a search strategy for an Evidence Based retrieval service. PLoS One, 11(12), e0167170. [e0167170]. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0167170
Ho, Gah Juan ; Liew, Su May ; Ng, Chirk Jenn ; Hisham Shunmugam, Ranita ; Glasziou, Paul. / Development of a search strategy for an Evidence Based retrieval service. In: PLoS One. 2016 ; Vol. 11, No. 12. pp. e0167170.
@article{e06023beeb9542c086bc68a6b47d177a,
title = "Development of a search strategy for an Evidence Based retrieval service",
abstract = "BACKGROUND: Physicians are often encouraged to locate answers for their clinical queries via an evidence-based literature search approach. The methods used are often not clearly specified. Inappropriate search strategies, time constraint and contradictory information complicate evidence retrieval.AIMS: Our study aimed to develop a search strategy to answer clinical queries among physicians in a primary care setting.METHODS: Six clinical questions of different medical conditions seen in primary care were formulated. A series of experimental searches to answer each question was conducted on 3 commonly advocated medical databases. We compared search results from a PICO (patients, intervention, comparison, outcome) framework for questions using different combinations of PICO elements. We also compared outcomes from doing searches using text words, Medical Subject Headings (MeSH), or a combination of both. All searches were documented using screenshots and saved search strategies.RESULTS: Answers to all 6 questions using the PICO framework were found. A higher number of systematic reviews were obtained using a 2 PICO element search compared to a 4 element search. A more optimal choice of search is a combination of both text words and MeSH terms. Despite searching using the Systematic Review filter, many non-systematic reviews or narrative reviews were found in PubMed. There was poor overlap between outcomes of searches using different databases. The duration of search and screening for the 6 questions ranged from 1 to 4 hours.CONCLUSION: This strategy has been shown to be feasible and can provide evidence to doctors' clinical questions. It has the potential to be incorporated into an interventional study to determine the impact of an online evidence retrieval system.",
author = "Ho, {Gah Juan} and Liew, {Su May} and Ng, {Chirk Jenn} and {Hisham Shunmugam}, Ranita and Paul Glasziou",
year = "2016",
month = "12",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1371/journal.pone.0167170",
language = "English",
volume = "11",
pages = "e0167170",
journal = "PLoS One",
issn = "1932-6203",
publisher = "Public Library of Science",
number = "12",

}

Ho, GJ, Liew, SM, Ng, CJ, Hisham Shunmugam, R & Glasziou, P 2016, 'Development of a search strategy for an Evidence Based retrieval service' PLoS One, vol. 11, no. 12, e0167170, pp. e0167170. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0167170

Development of a search strategy for an Evidence Based retrieval service. / Ho, Gah Juan; Liew, Su May; Ng, Chirk Jenn; Hisham Shunmugam, Ranita; Glasziou, Paul.

In: PLoS One, Vol. 11, No. 12, e0167170, 01.12.2016, p. e0167170.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Development of a search strategy for an Evidence Based retrieval service

AU - Ho, Gah Juan

AU - Liew, Su May

AU - Ng, Chirk Jenn

AU - Hisham Shunmugam, Ranita

AU - Glasziou, Paul

PY - 2016/12/1

Y1 - 2016/12/1

N2 - BACKGROUND: Physicians are often encouraged to locate answers for their clinical queries via an evidence-based literature search approach. The methods used are often not clearly specified. Inappropriate search strategies, time constraint and contradictory information complicate evidence retrieval.AIMS: Our study aimed to develop a search strategy to answer clinical queries among physicians in a primary care setting.METHODS: Six clinical questions of different medical conditions seen in primary care were formulated. A series of experimental searches to answer each question was conducted on 3 commonly advocated medical databases. We compared search results from a PICO (patients, intervention, comparison, outcome) framework for questions using different combinations of PICO elements. We also compared outcomes from doing searches using text words, Medical Subject Headings (MeSH), or a combination of both. All searches were documented using screenshots and saved search strategies.RESULTS: Answers to all 6 questions using the PICO framework were found. A higher number of systematic reviews were obtained using a 2 PICO element search compared to a 4 element search. A more optimal choice of search is a combination of both text words and MeSH terms. Despite searching using the Systematic Review filter, many non-systematic reviews or narrative reviews were found in PubMed. There was poor overlap between outcomes of searches using different databases. The duration of search and screening for the 6 questions ranged from 1 to 4 hours.CONCLUSION: This strategy has been shown to be feasible and can provide evidence to doctors' clinical questions. It has the potential to be incorporated into an interventional study to determine the impact of an online evidence retrieval system.

AB - BACKGROUND: Physicians are often encouraged to locate answers for their clinical queries via an evidence-based literature search approach. The methods used are often not clearly specified. Inappropriate search strategies, time constraint and contradictory information complicate evidence retrieval.AIMS: Our study aimed to develop a search strategy to answer clinical queries among physicians in a primary care setting.METHODS: Six clinical questions of different medical conditions seen in primary care were formulated. A series of experimental searches to answer each question was conducted on 3 commonly advocated medical databases. We compared search results from a PICO (patients, intervention, comparison, outcome) framework for questions using different combinations of PICO elements. We also compared outcomes from doing searches using text words, Medical Subject Headings (MeSH), or a combination of both. All searches were documented using screenshots and saved search strategies.RESULTS: Answers to all 6 questions using the PICO framework were found. A higher number of systematic reviews were obtained using a 2 PICO element search compared to a 4 element search. A more optimal choice of search is a combination of both text words and MeSH terms. Despite searching using the Systematic Review filter, many non-systematic reviews or narrative reviews were found in PubMed. There was poor overlap between outcomes of searches using different databases. The duration of search and screening for the 6 questions ranged from 1 to 4 hours.CONCLUSION: This strategy has been shown to be feasible and can provide evidence to doctors' clinical questions. It has the potential to be incorporated into an interventional study to determine the impact of an online evidence retrieval system.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85006055020&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1371/journal.pone.0167170

DO - 10.1371/journal.pone.0167170

M3 - Article

VL - 11

SP - e0167170

JO - PLoS One

JF - PLoS One

SN - 1932-6203

IS - 12

M1 - e0167170

ER -