PubMed · 15017392
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
R Spittal. 2004-03-13. Abstract issue.. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.4811044
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
The purpose of this report was to determine the rate at which abstracts orally presented at the European Congress of Radiology (ECR) 2001 were published in 2001-2005 Medline-indexed journals and to compare publication rates and factors with presentations at the ECR in two different periods (2001 and 2000). Absolute and relative publication rates (APR, RPR) and different publication-related factors were analysed. From 991 abstracts originating from 52 countries, 449 articles (APR 45%) were subsequently published in 125 journals, most frequently in European Radiology (n=79, 18%). Country of origin statistically (p<0.0001) influences subsequent publication of the abstract, with Germany having the highest number of presentations (n=300) and derived articles (n=175, RPR 58%) whereas Sweden had the highest RPR (82%). Interventional and physics studies had the highest RPR (59% and 58%, respectively). The ECR meeting has a very high and stable APR (ECR 2001: 45% vs ECR 2000: 47%), and the journal European Radiology had the larger number of related publications (18% RPR following ECR 2001 compared with 14% from ECR 2000). Germany had the highest number of presentations and publications for both meetings. The highest RPR for ECR 2001 was found in interventional and physics studies whereas chest and cardiac studies had the highest RPR for ECR 2000.
BACKGROUND: The Cochrane Highly Sensitive Search Strategy (HSSS), which contains three phases, is widely used to identify Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) in MEDLINE. Lefebvre and Clarke suggest that reviewers might consider using four revisions of the HSSS. The objective of this study is to validate these four revisions: combining the free text terms volunteer, crossover, versus, and the Medical Subject Heading CROSS-OVER STUDIES with the top two phases of the HSSS, respectively. METHODS: We replicated the subject search for 61 Cochrane reviews. The included studies of each review that were indexed in MEDLINE were pooled together by review and then combined with the subject search and each of the four proposed search strategies, the top two phases of the HSSS, and all three phases of the HSSS. These retrievals were used to calculate the sensitivity and precision of each of the six search strategies for each review. RESULTS: Across the 61 reviews, the search term versus combined with the top two phases of the HSSS was able to find 3 more included studies than the top two phases of the HSSS alone, or in combination with any of the other proposed search terms, but at the expense of missing 56 relevant articles that would be found if all three phases of the HSSS were used. The estimated time needed to finish a review is 1086 hours for all three phases of the HSSS, 823 hours for the strategy versus, 818 hours for the first two phases of the HSSS or any of the other three proposed strategies. CONCLUSION: This study shows that compared to the first two phases of the HSSS, adding the term versus to the top two phases of the HSSS balances the sensitivity and precision in the reviews studied here to some extent but the differences are very small. It is well known that missing relevant studies may result in bias in systematic reviews. Reviewers need to weigh the trade-offs when selecting the search strategies for identifying RCTs in MEDLINE.
BACKGROUND: In order to carry out a methodological research survey of systematic reviews of adverse effects we needed to retrieve a sample of systematic reviews in which the primary outcome is an adverse effect or effects. METHODS: We carried out searches of the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) for systematic reviews of adverse effects published between 1994 to 2005. The search strategies used a combination of text words in the title and abstract, Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) and subheadings/qualifiers. In addition, DARE records in progress were hand searched. No language restrictions were placed on any of the searches. The performance, in terms of sensitivity and precision, of the search strategies and their combinations were tested in DARE and CDSR. RESULTS: In total 3635 records were screened of which 257 met our inclusion criteria. The precision of the searches in CDSR was low (0% to 3%), and no one search strategy could retrieve all the relevant records in either DARE or CDSR. Hand searching the records from DARE and CDSR not retrieved by our searches indicated that we had missed relevant systematic reviews in both DARE and CDSR. The sensitivities of many of the search combinations were comparable to those found when searching for primary studies in which adverse effects are secondary outcomes. CONCLUSION: Searching major databases of systematic reviews, for systematic reviews of adverse effects, proved more difficult than anticipated due to a lack of standard terminology used by the authors, inadequate indexing and the variations in the search interfaces of the databases. At present hand searching all records in DARE and CDSR seems to be the only way to ensure retrieval of all systematic reviews of adverse effects in these databases.