The feasibility of a search filter for the adverse effects of nondrug interventions in MEDLINE and Embase

Rapid review: A review of methods and recommendations based on current evidence

Rapid review (RR) could accelerate the traditional systematic review (SR) process by simplifying or omitting steps using various shortcuts. With the increasing popularity of RR, numerous shortcuts had emerged, but there was no consensus on how to choose the most appropriate ones. This study conducted a literature search in PubMed from inception to December 21, 2023, using terms such as "rapid review" "rapid assessment" "rapid systematic review" and "rapid evaluation". We also scanned the reference lists and performed citation tracking of included impact studies to obtain more included studies. We conducted a narrative synthesis of all RR approaches, shortcuts and studies assessing their effectiveness at each stage of RRs. Based on the current evidence, we provided recommendations on utilizing certain shortcuts in RRs. Ultimately, we identified 185 studies focusing on summarizing RR approaches and shortcuts, or evaluating their impact. There was relatively sufficient evidence to support the use of the following shortcuts in RRs: limiting studies to those published in English-language; conducting abbreviated database searches (e.g., only searching PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL); omitting retrieval of grey literature; restricting the search timeframe to the recent 20 years for medical intervention and the recent 15 years for reviewing diagnostic test accuracy; conducting a single screening by an experienced screener. To some extent, the above shortcuts were also applicable to SRs. This study provided a reference for future RR researchers in selecting shortcuts, and it also presented a potential research topic for methodologists.

Using Embase as a supplement to PubMed in Cochrane reviews differed across fields

OBJECTIVE

Medline/PubMed is often first choice for health science researchers when doing literature searches. However, Medline/PubMed does not cover the health science research literature equally well across specialties. Embase is often considered an important supplement to Medline/PubMed in health sciences. The present study analyzes the coverage of Embase as a supplement to PubMed, and the aim of the study is to investigate if searching Embase can compensate for low PubMed retrieval.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

The population in this study is all the included studies in all Cochrane reviews from 2012 to 2016 across the 53 Cochrane groups. The analyses were performed using two units of analysis (study and publication). We are examining the coverage in Embase of publications and studies not covered by PubMed (25,119 publications and 9,420 studies).

RESULTS

The results showed that using Embase as a supplement to PubMed resulted in a coverage of 66,994 publications out of 86,167 and a coverage rate of 77.7, 95% CI [75.05, 80.45] of all the included publications. Embase combined with PubMed covered 48,326 out of 54,901 studies and thus had a coverage rate of 88.0%, 95% CI [86.2, 89.9] of studies. The results also showed that supplementing PubMed with Embase increased coverage of included publications by 6.8 percentage points, and the coverage of studies increased by 5.5 percentage points. Substantial differences were found across and within review groups over time.

CONCLUSION

The included publications and studies in some groups are covered considerably better by supplementing with Embase, whereas in other groups, the difference in coverage is negligible. However, due to the variation over time, one should be careful predicting the benefit from supplementing PubMed with Embase to retrieve relevant publications to include in a review.

The safety of spinal manipulative therapy in children under 10 years: a rapid review

INTRODUCTION

The safety of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) in children is controversial. We were mandated by the College of Chiropractors of British Columbia to review the evidence on this issue.

OBJECTIVES

We conducted a rapid review of the safety of SMT in children (< 10 years). We aimed to: 1) describe adverse events; 2) report the incidence of adverse events; and 3) determine whether SMT increases the risk of adverse events compared to other interventions.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, and Index to Chiropractic Literature from January 1, 1990 to August 1, 2019. We used rapid review methodology recommended by the World Health Organization. Eligible studies (case reports/series, cohort studies and randomized controlled trials) were critically appraised. Studies of high and acceptable methodological quality were included. The lead author extracted data. Data extraction was independently validated by a second reviewer. We conducted a qualitative synthesis of the evidence.

FINDINGS

Most adverse events are mild (e.g., increased crying, soreness). One case report describes a severe adverse event (rib fracture in a 21-day-old) and another an indirect harm in a 4-month-old. The incidence of mild adverse events ranges from 0.3% (95% CI: 0.06, 1.82) to 22.22% (95% CI: 6.32, 54.74). Whether SMT increases the risk of adverse events in children is unknown.

CONCLUSION

The risk of moderate and severe adverse events is unknown in children treated with SMT. It is unclear whether SMT increases the risk of adverse events in children < 10 years.

The development of search filters for adverse effects of medical devices in medline and embase

BACKGROUND

Objectively derived search filters for adverse drug effects and complications in surgery have been developed but not for medical device adverse effects.

OBJECTIVE

To develop and validate search filters to retrieve evidence on medical device adverse effects from ovid medline and embase.

METHODS

We identified systematic reviews from Epistemonikos and the Health Technology Assessment (hta) database. Included studies within these reviews that reported on medical device adverse effects were randomly divided into three test sets and one validation set of records. Using word frequency analysis from one test set, we constructed a sensitivity maximising search strategy. This strategy was refined using two other test sets, then validated.

RESULTS

From 186 systematic reviews which met our inclusion criteria, 1984 unique included studies were available from medline and 1986 from embase. Generic adverse effects searches in medline and embase achieved 84% and 83% sensitivity. Recall was improved to over 90%, however, when specific adverse effects terms were added.

CONCLUSION

We have derived and validated novel search filters that retrieve over 80% of records with medical device adverse effects data in medline and embase. The addition of specific adverse effects terms is required to achieve higher levels of sensitivity.

Overview: comprehensive and carefully constructed strategies are required when conducting searches for adverse effects data

OBJECTIVES

Methodological research has been undertaken to investigate the many challenges in searching for adverse effects data. It is imperative that the search approach adopted in systematic reviews is based on the best available evidence. We provide a detailed summary of the results and implications of the current evidence base to assist future searches for adverse effects.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

This article is a narrative review from the authors of the Cochrane Handbook chapter on adverse effects.

RESULTS

The specified search strategy must be based on the population, intervention, comparator, outcome(s) format for question formulation and appropriate study designs for adverse effects data. Search filters and suggested search terms are available for the adverse effects of drug, medical devices, and surgical interventions. The use of generic adverse effects terms (such as harms and complications) as text words and indexing terms and specific adverse effects terms (such as rash and wound infection) are warranted. Searching databases beyond MEDLINE has proven useful, as well as the use of nondatabase sources.

CONCLUSION

This article provides the most up-to-date evidence-based guidance in identifying adverse effects data in the literature. It will support searchers and researchers evaluating the potential for harm of medical interventions in systematic reviews.

A failed attempt at developing a search filter for systematic review methodology articles in Ovid Embase

OBJECTIVES

This paper describes the development, execution, and subsequent failure of an attempt to create an Ovid Embase search filter for locating systematic review methodology articles.

METHODS

The authors devised a work plan, based on best practices, for search filter development that has been outlined in the literature. Three reference samples were gathered by identifying the OVID Embase records for specific articles that were included in the PubMed Systematic Review Methods subset. The first sample was analyzed to develop a set of keywords and subject headings to include in the search filter. The second and third samples would have been used to calibrate the search filter and to calculate filter sensitivity and precision, respectively.

RESULTS

Technical shortcomings, database indexing practices, and the fuzzy nature of keyword terminology relevant to the topic prevented us from designing the search filter.

CONCLUSION

Creating a search filter to identify systematic review methodology articles in Ovid Embase is not possible at this time.

The development of search filters for adverse effects of surgical interventions in medline and Embase

Background

Search filter development for adverse effects has tended to focus on retrieving studies of drug interventions. However, a different approach is required for surgical interventions.

Objective

To develop and validate search filters for medline and Embase for the adverse effects of surgical interventions.

Methods

Systematic reviews of surgical interventions where the primary focus was to evaluate adverse effect(s) were sought. The included studies within these reviews were divided randomly into a development set, evaluation set and validation set. Using word frequency analysis we constructed a sensitivity maximising search strategy and this was tested in the evaluation and validation set.

Results

Three hundred and fifty eight papers were included from 19 surgical intervention reviews. Three hundred and fifty two papers were available on medline and 348 were available on Embase. Generic adverse effects search strategies in medline and Embase could achieve approximately 90% relative recall. Recall could be further improved with the addition of specific adverse effects terms to the search strategies.

Conclusion

We have derived and validated a novel search filter that has reasonable performance for identifying adverse effects of surgical interventions in medline and Embase. However, we appreciate the limitations of our methods, and recommend further research on larger sample sizes and prospective systematic reviews.

The feasibility of a search filter for the adverse effects of nondrug interventions in MEDLINE and Embase

Authors and indexers are increasingly including terms for adverse drug effects in the titles, abstracts, or indexing of records in MEDLINE and Embase. However, it is not clear if this is the same for studies with nondrug adverse effects data. We therefore assessed the feasibility of using adverse effects terms when searching MEDLINE or Embase to retrieve papers of nondrug adverse effects. A collection of papers that reported data on nondrug adverse effects was sought from included studies of systematic reviews. Each included study was analysed to ascertain whether the corresponding record in MEDLINE and Embase included adverse effects terms in the title, abstract, or indexing. From 9129 records screened from DARE, 30 reviews evaluating nondrug adverse effects met our inclusion criteria. From these, 635 unique papers were included in our analysis. Sensitive searches for adverse effects required generic and specific named adverse effects terms using the title, abstract, and indexing. Records relating to surgical interventions were more likely to contain adverse effects terms than records relating to nonsurgical interventions. Using any adverse effects terms in the title, abstract or indexing in MEDLINE and Embase would have identified an average of 94% of papers on surgical adverse effect interventions per systematic review and 72% of papers on nonsurgical adverse effects per systematic review. Hence, while a generic nondrug adverse effect search filter may not yet be feasible, a filter for the adverse effects of surgical interventions may be within reach.