These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Developing efficient search strategies to identify reports of adverse effects in MEDLINE and EMBASE.
    Author: Golder S, McIntosh HM, Duffy S, Glanville J, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and UK Cochrane Centre Search Filters Design Group.
    Journal: Health Info Libr J; 2006 Mar; 23(1):3-12. PubMed ID: 16466494.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the performance, in terms of sensitivity and precision, of different approaches to searching MEDLINE and EMBASE to identify studies of adverse effects. METHODS: Five approaches to searching for adverse effects evidence were identified: approach 1, using specified adverse effects; approach 2, using subheadings/qualifiers; approach 3, using text words; approach 4, using indexing terms; approach 5, searching for specific study designs. The sensitivity and precision of these five approaches, and combinations of these approaches, were compared in a case study using a systematic review of the adverse effects of seven anti-epileptic drugs. RESULTS: The most sensitive search strategy in MEDLINE (97.0%) required a combination of terms for specified adverse effects, floating subheadings, and text words for 'adverse effects'. In EMBASE, a combination of terms for specified adverse effects and text words for 'adverse effects' provided the most sensitive search strategy (98.6%). Both these search strategies yielded low precision (2.8%). CONCLUSIONS: A highly sensitive search in either database requires a combination of approaches, and has low precision. This suggests that better reporting and indexing of adverse effects is required and that an effective generic search filter may not yet be feasible.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]