Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorMartínez García, L.
dc.contributor.authorSanabria, AJ.
dc.contributor.authorAraya, I.
dc.contributor.authorLawson, J.
dc.contributor.authorSolà, I.
dc.contributor.authorVernooij, RWM.
dc.contributor.authorLópez, D.
dc.contributor.authorGarcía Álvarez, E.
dc.contributor.authorTrujillo-Martín, MM.
dc.contributor.authorEtxeandia-Ikobaltzeta, I.
dc.contributor.authorKotzeva, A.
dc.contributor.authorRigau, D.
dc.contributor.authorLouro-González, A.
dc.contributor.authorBarajas-Nava, L.
dc.contributor.authorDíaz del Campo, P.
dc.contributor.authorEstrada, MD.
dc.contributor.authorGracia, J.
dc.contributor.authorSalcedo-Fernandez, F.
dc.contributor.authorHaynes, RB.
dc.contributor.authorAlonso-Coello, P.
dc.date.accessioned2015-09-01T18:48:47Z
dc.date.available2015-09-01T18:48:47Z
dc.date.issued2015-07-31
dc.identifier.citationBMC Medical Research Methodology. 2015 Jul 31;15(1):57
dc.identifier.urihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-015-0058-2
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10724/32075
dc.description.abstractAbstract Background A major challenge in updating clinical guidelines is to efficiently identify new, relevant evidence. We evaluated the efficiency and feasibility of two new approaches: the development of restrictive search strategies using PubMed Clinical Queries for MEDLINE and the use of the PLUS (McMaster Premium Literature Service) database. Methods We evaluated a random sample of recommendations from a national guideline development program and identified the references that would potentially trigger an update (key references) using an exhaustive approach. We designed restrictive search strategies using the minimum number of Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms and text words required from the original exhaustive search strategies and applying broad and narrow filters. We developed PLUS search strategies, matching Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) and Systematized Nomenclature of Medicine (SNOMED) terms with guideline topics. We compared the number of key references retrieved by these approaches with those retrieved by the exhaustive approach. Results The restrictive approach retrieved 68.1 % fewer references than the exhaustive approach (12,486 versus 39,136), and identified 89.9 % (62/69) of key references and 88 % (22/25) of recommendation updates. The use of PLUS retrieved 88.5 % fewer references than the exhaustive approach (4,486 versus 39,136) and identified substantially fewer key references (18/69, 26.1 %) and fewer recommendation updates (10/25, 40 %). Conclusions The proposed restrictive approach is a highly efficient and feasible method to identify new evidence that triggers a recommendation update. Searching only in the PLUS database proved to be a suboptimal approach and suggests the need for topic-specific tailoring.
dc.titleEfficiency of pragmatic search strategies to update clinical guidelines recommendations
dc.typeJournal Article
dc.date.updated2015-07-31T03:51:17Z
dc.language.rfc3066en
dc.rights.holderMartínez García et al.


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record