Pieter F. de Vries Robbé

Analysis of queries sent to PubMed at the point of care: Observation of search behaviour in a medical teaching hospital

BackgroundThe use of PubMed to answer daily medical care questions is limited because it is challenging to retrieve a small set of relevant articles and time is restricted. Knowing what aspects of queries are likely to retrieve relevant articles can increase the effectiveness of PubMed searches. The objectives of our study were to identify queries that are likely to retrieve relevant articles by relating PubMed search techniques and tools to the number of articles retrieved and the selection of articles for further reading.MethodsThis was a prospective observational study of queries regarding patient-related problems sent to PubMed by residents and internists in internal medicine working in an Academic Medical Centre. We analyzed queries, search results, query tools (Mesh, Limits, wildcards, operators), selection of abstract and full-text for further reading, using a portal that mimics PubMed.ResultsPubMed was used to solve 1121 patient-related problems, resulting in 3205 distinct queries. Abstracts were viewed in 999 (31%) of these queries, and in 126 (39%) of 321 queries using query tools. The average term count per query was 2.5. Abstracts were selected in more than 40% of queries using four or five terms, increasing to 63% if the use of four or five terms yielded 2–161 articles.ConclusionQueries sent to PubMed by physicians at our hospital during daily medical care contain fewer than three terms. Queries using four to five terms, retrieving less than 161 article titles, are most likely to result in abstract viewing. PubMed search tools are used infrequently by our population and are less effective than the use of four or five terms. Methods to facilitate the formulation of precise queries, using more relevant terms, should be the focus of education and research.

Evaluation of PubMed filters used for evidence-based searching: validation using relative recall.

OBJECTIVES The research sought to determine the value of PubMed filters and combinations of filters in literature selected for systematic reviews on therapy-related clinical questions. METHODS References to 35,281 included and 48,514 excluded articles were extracted from 2,629 reviews published prior to January 2008 in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and sent to PubMed with and without filters. Sensitivity, specificity, and precision were calculated from the percentages of unfiltered and filtered references retrieved for each review and averaged over all reviews. RESULTS Sensitivity of the Sensitive Clinical Queries filter was reasonable (92.7%, 92.1-93.3); specificity (16.1%, 15.1-17.1) and precision were low (49.5%, 48.5-50.5). The Specific Clinical Queries and the Single Term Medline Specific filters performed comparably (sensitivity, 78.2%, 77.2-79.2 vs. 78.0%; 77.0-79.0; specificity, 52.0%, 50.8-53.2 vs. 52.3%, 51.1-53.5; precision, 60.4%, 59.4-61.4 vs. 60.6%, 59.6-61.6). Combining the Abridged Index Medicus (AIM) and Single Term Medline Specific (65.2%, 63.8-66.6), Two Terms Medline Optimized (64.2%, 62.8-65.6), or Specific Clinical Queries filters (65.0%, 63.6-66.4) yielded the highest precision. CONCLUSIONS Sensitive and Specific Clinical Queries filters used to answer questions about therapy will result in a list of clinical trials but cannot be expected to identify only methodologically sound trials. The Specific Clinical Queries filters are not suitable for questions regarding therapy that cannot be answered with randomized controlled trials. Combining AIM with specific PubMed filters yields the highest precision in the Cochrane dataset.

Comparing patient characteristics, type of intervention, control, and outcome (PICO) queries with unguided searching: a randomized controlled crossover trial

BACKGROUND Translating a question into a query using patient characteristics, type of intervention, control, and outcome (PICO) should help answer therapeutic questions in PubMed searches. The authors performed a randomized crossover trial to determine whether the PICO format was useful for quick searches of PubMed. METHODS Twenty-two residents and specialists working at the Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre were trained in formulating PICO queries and then presented with a randomized set of questions derived from Cochrane reviews. They were asked to use the best query possible in a five-minute search, using standard and PICO queries. Recall and precision were calculated for both standard and PICO queries. RESULTS Twenty-two physicians created 434 queries using both techniques. Average precision was 4.02% for standard queries and 3.44% for PICO queries (difference nonsignificant, t(21) = -0.56, P = 0.58). Average recall was 12.27% for standard queries and 13.62% for PICO queries (difference nonsignificant, t(21) = -0.76, P = 0.46). CONCLUSIONS PICO queries do not result in better recall or precision in time-limited searches. Standard queries containing enough detail are sufficient for quick searches.

Project Aanpassing landelijke informatieproducten (ALI): consequenties voor de GGZ-instellingen

SamenvattingDe brancheorganisatie GGZ Nederland heeft per 2007 afscheid genomen van de GGZ zorggegevensset en het Zorgis informatiesysteem, waarmee prestaties van GGZ- en verslavingszorg instellingen gepresenteerd en vergeleken werden. Met het project Aanpassing Landelijke Informatieproducten (ALI) wordt beoogd de informatievoorziening te verbeteren, zonder extra administratieve lasten voor de instellingen.

Variety in mental health research data: when does more become too much?

BackgroundInstitutes for mental health care consider scientific research an important activity. A good way to stimulate research is by simplifying data collection. Creating a minimal data set for research purposes would be one way to achieve this, however, this would only be possible if the researchers use a limited variety of data types. This article will address the question whether or not this is the case.MethodsResearchers working in Dutch mental health institutes were approached and asked to complete an internet questionnaire on the individual variables they collected for, and measurement instruments used in, their studies.ResultsIn the 92 studies described by the researchers, 124 different variables were collected, and 223 different instruments were used. A total of 66% of the variables and 73% of the instruments were only used in one study.ConclusionThere is little commonality among research data, hence flexibility will be a crucial factor in facilitating data collection for research in mental health institutes. Nevertheless, reducing the variety of variables and instruments used is important to increase the comparability of results.