Established search filters may miss studies when identifying randomized controlled trials

Chris Cooper; Jo Varley-Campbell; Patrice Carter

doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.04.002

Established search filters may miss studies when identifying randomized controlled trials

Chris Cooper^*, Jo Varley-Campbell, Patrice Carter

^*Corresponding author for this work

Bristol Medical School (PHS)

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article (Academic Journal) › peer-review

27 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objectives: The authors were becoming increasingly aware of studies reporting randomized controlled trial (RCT), which reported trial phase but did not mention study design or randomization in the title or abstract. The objective of this study was to determine if established RCT literature search filters should include terms for trial phase. Study Design and Setting: This study is a case study. A search filter for trial phase (the P3 filter)was developed, and its sensitivity, efficiency, and value were determined when compared with two established RCT literature search filters (The Cochrane Highly Sensitive Search Strategies [HSSS]and the Royle and Waugh Brief RCT Search Strategy [BRSS])in the year 2015—improved sensitivity was determined where the P3 filter identified studies missed by either of the established filters; efficiency was determined by the number needed to read; and the Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to determine study quality as a proxy for value. Results: Both established filters missed studies. The HSSS missed one RCT and four follow-up RCT studies. The BRSS missed one RCT and five follow-up RCT studies. Study quality was unclear. Conclusion: Established RCT literature search filters may miss studies where trial phase is reported instead of terms for study design or randomization. The P3 filter can be incorporated to improve sensitivity.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	12-19
Number of pages	8
Journal	Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Volume	112
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.04.002
Publication status	Published - Aug 2019

Bibliographical note

Funding Information:
C.C. acknowledges the funding provided by the PenTAG HTA grant (PI Chris Hyde) to develop and present the initial draft of this idea at HTAI 2016. C.C. acknowledges the input of Louise Crathorne and Simon Briscoe into the conference presentation and Simon Briscoe for his input into the design of the study and literature searching. The authors thanks Eleanor Kotas for proof reading the article before submission and for peer-reviewing the search strategy.

Publisher Copyright:
© 2019

Keywords

Literature search effectiveness
Literature searching
Randomised controlled trials
RCT
Search filters
Systematic reviews

Access to Document

10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.04.002

Handle.net

Persistent link

Cite this

@article{752b08c37034413393e6a2fb02ee4ca6,

title = "Established search filters may miss studies when identifying randomized controlled trials",

abstract = "Objectives: The authors were becoming increasingly aware of studies reporting randomized controlled trial (RCT), which reported trial phase but did not mention study design or randomization in the title or abstract. The objective of this study was to determine if established RCT literature search filters should include terms for trial phase. Study Design and Setting: This study is a case study. A search filter for trial phase (the P3 filter)was developed, and its sensitivity, efficiency, and value were determined when compared with two established RCT literature search filters (The Cochrane Highly Sensitive Search Strategies [HSSS]and the Royle and Waugh Brief RCT Search Strategy [BRSS])in the year 2015—improved sensitivity was determined where the P3 filter identified studies missed by either of the established filters; efficiency was determined by the number needed to read; and the Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to determine study quality as a proxy for value. Results: Both established filters missed studies. The HSSS missed one RCT and four follow-up RCT studies. The BRSS missed one RCT and five follow-up RCT studies. Study quality was unclear. Conclusion: Established RCT literature search filters may miss studies where trial phase is reported instead of terms for study design or randomization. The P3 filter can be incorporated to improve sensitivity.",

keywords = "Literature search effectiveness, Literature searching, Randomised controlled trials, RCT, Search filters, Systematic reviews",

author = "Chris Cooper and Jo Varley-Campbell and Patrice Carter",

note = "Funding Information: C.C. acknowledges the funding provided by the PenTAG HTA grant (PI Chris Hyde) to develop and present the initial draft of this idea at HTAI 2016. C.C. acknowledges the input of Louise Crathorne and Simon Briscoe into the conference presentation and Simon Briscoe for his input into the design of the study and literature searching. The authors thanks Eleanor Kotas for proof reading the article before submission and for peer-reviewing the search strategy. Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2019",

year = "2019",

month = aug,

doi = "10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.04.002",

language = "English",

volume = "112",

pages = "12--19",

journal = "Journal of Clinical Epidemiology",

issn = "0895-4356",

publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Established search filters may miss studies when identifying randomized controlled trials

AU - Cooper, Chris

AU - Varley-Campbell, Jo

AU - Carter, Patrice

N1 - Funding Information: C.C. acknowledges the funding provided by the PenTAG HTA grant (PI Chris Hyde) to develop and present the initial draft of this idea at HTAI 2016. C.C. acknowledges the input of Louise Crathorne and Simon Briscoe into the conference presentation and Simon Briscoe for his input into the design of the study and literature searching. The authors thanks Eleanor Kotas for proof reading the article before submission and for peer-reviewing the search strategy. Publisher Copyright: © 2019

PY - 2019/8

Y1 - 2019/8

N2 - Objectives: The authors were becoming increasingly aware of studies reporting randomized controlled trial (RCT), which reported trial phase but did not mention study design or randomization in the title or abstract. The objective of this study was to determine if established RCT literature search filters should include terms for trial phase. Study Design and Setting: This study is a case study. A search filter for trial phase (the P3 filter)was developed, and its sensitivity, efficiency, and value were determined when compared with two established RCT literature search filters (The Cochrane Highly Sensitive Search Strategies [HSSS]and the Royle and Waugh Brief RCT Search Strategy [BRSS])in the year 2015—improved sensitivity was determined where the P3 filter identified studies missed by either of the established filters; efficiency was determined by the number needed to read; and the Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to determine study quality as a proxy for value. Results: Both established filters missed studies. The HSSS missed one RCT and four follow-up RCT studies. The BRSS missed one RCT and five follow-up RCT studies. Study quality was unclear. Conclusion: Established RCT literature search filters may miss studies where trial phase is reported instead of terms for study design or randomization. The P3 filter can be incorporated to improve sensitivity.

AB - Objectives: The authors were becoming increasingly aware of studies reporting randomized controlled trial (RCT), which reported trial phase but did not mention study design or randomization in the title or abstract. The objective of this study was to determine if established RCT literature search filters should include terms for trial phase. Study Design and Setting: This study is a case study. A search filter for trial phase (the P3 filter)was developed, and its sensitivity, efficiency, and value were determined when compared with two established RCT literature search filters (The Cochrane Highly Sensitive Search Strategies [HSSS]and the Royle and Waugh Brief RCT Search Strategy [BRSS])in the year 2015—improved sensitivity was determined where the P3 filter identified studies missed by either of the established filters; efficiency was determined by the number needed to read; and the Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to determine study quality as a proxy for value. Results: Both established filters missed studies. The HSSS missed one RCT and four follow-up RCT studies. The BRSS missed one RCT and five follow-up RCT studies. Study quality was unclear. Conclusion: Established RCT literature search filters may miss studies where trial phase is reported instead of terms for study design or randomization. The P3 filter can be incorporated to improve sensitivity.

KW - Literature search effectiveness

KW - Literature searching

KW - Randomised controlled trials

KW - RCT

KW - Search filters

KW - Systematic reviews

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85065135025&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.04.002

DO - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.04.002

M3 - Article (Academic Journal)

C2 - 30986533

AN - SCOPUS:85065135025

SN - 0895-4356

VL - 112

SP - 12

EP - 19

JO - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

JF - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

ER -

Established search filters may miss studies when identifying randomized controlled trials

Abstract

Bibliographical note

Keywords

Access to Document

Handle.net

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this