%0 Journal Article
%T Translation of Hedges in Medical Databases to Other Platforms＊ Syntax May Cause Significantly Different Search Results. A Review of: Bradley, S. M. (2010). Examination of the clinical queries and systematic review ※hedges§ in EMBASE and MEDLINE. Journal of the Canadian Health Libraries Association, 31, 27-37.
%A Heather Ganshorn
%J Evidence Based Library and Information Practice
%D 2011
%I University of Alberta
%X Objective 每 To determine whether the methodological search filters in OvidSP MEDLINE and OvidSP EMBASE also known as Clinical Queries hedges had been modified from the originals which were written by the McMaster University Health Information Research Unit Hedges Group (the Haynes Group) and whether the translations of these hedges by the National Library of Medicine used in PubMed and EBSCO MEDLINE were reliable. The hedges examined are for the clinical categories of diagnosis, therapy, etiology, prognosis, clinical prediction guides, and reviews. The author also examined the translated National Library of Medicine (NLM) Systematic Reviews hedges in OvidSP MEDLINE and EBSCO MEDLINE. Design 每 Validity of hedges used in various databases. Setting 每 OvidSP MEDLINE, OvidSP EMBASE, EBSCO MEDLINE and PubMed were studied. Subjects 每 The Clinical Queries hedges designed to facilitate enhanced retrieval of particular types of studies in the above-mentioned databases were compared. Methods 每 The author ran the Clinical Queries hedges in OvidSP MEDLINE, OvidSP EMBASE and PubMed. Next, she manually entered the original Haynes Group publishedhedge search strings for each clinical query in these databases, and compared the results to the Clinical Queries. The author also compared the results obtained from the Ovid MEDLINE Clinical Queries versus the hedges in PubMed and EBSCO MEDLINE. The percentage difference in number of hits between the Ovid platform and the other platform was calculated. Where the difference was greater than 10%, the author modified the search string and re-tested it. There was no gold standard for comparison, so it was not possible to make calculations such as sensitivity, specificity, precision, or accuracy.For the testing of the Review hedges, the author used the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews as a gold standard to compare search results. She also compared the results in OvidSP MEDLINE to the results in EBSCO MEDLINE and PubMed. Main Results 每 Comparing the 27 OvidSP Clinical Queries limits to the equivalent Haynes search strings, the author found identical results, suggesting that the OvidSP hedges have not been changed from Haynes＊ original search strings. However, when the OvidSP MEDLINE hedges were compared to PubMed and EBSCO, there were discrepancies. If the hedges were translated exactly, one should expect the result sets to be nearly identical, with the exception of records that had not yet been uploaded to OvidSP and EBSCO (PubMed contains records that are not yet fully indexed).However, other problems became evident. While t
%K medical databases
%K MEDLINE
%K EMBASE
%K hedges
%K clinical queries
%K systematic reviews
%U http://ejournals.library.ualberta.ca/index.php/EBLIP/article/download/9971/8138