%0 Journal Article
%T Identifying observational studies of surgical interventions in MEDLINE and EMBASE
%A Cynthia Fraser
%A Alison Murray
%A Jennifer Burr
%J BMC Medical Research Methodology
%D 2006
%I BioMed Central
%R 10.1186/1471-2288-6-41
%X An objective approach was employed to develop MEDLINE and EMBASE filters, using a reference standard derived from screening the results of an electronic literature search that contained only subject-related terms. Candidate terms for MEDLINE (N = 37) and EMBASE (N = 35) were derived from examination of the records of the reference standard. The filters were validated on two sets of studies that had been included in previous health technology assessments.The final filters were highly sensitive (MEDLINE 99.5%, EMBASE 100%, MEDLINE/EMBASE combined 100%) with precision ranging between 16.7% ¨C 21.1%, specificity 35.3% ¨C 43.5%, and a reduction in retrievals of over 30%. Against the validation standards, the individual filters retrieved 85.2% ¨C 100% of records. In combination, however, the MEDLINE and EMBASE filters retrieved 100% against both validation standards with a reduction in retrieved records of 28.4% and 30.1%The MEDLINE and EMBASE filters were highly sensitive and substantially reduced the number of records retrieved, indicating that they are useful tools for efficient literature searching.When assessing the safety and efficacy or effectiveness of health technologies it may not be appropriate to restrict the evidence to randomised controlled trials (RCTs) [1]. There are many situations where it may be considered necessary to include evidence from observational studies such as non-randomised comparative and case series studies [1]. In a survey of health technology assessments undertaken for the UK National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), 30% were found to include case series evidence [1]. A review of the included evidence for six systematic reviews, commissioned by NICE for their Interventional Procedures Program (IPP), found that 86% of the data came from case series with less than 5% from RCTs [2]. The most common reason given for inclusion of case series data was the absence of sufficient data from randomised evidence to assess effectivene
%U http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2288/6/41