Abstracts 189s captured at the source, leave less room for misinterpretation and give a greater reliability to the subsequent me&analyses. Furthermore a large part the work of trial identification and data extraction, which is the origin of much of the resource use of a quality systematic review is thereby eliminated. Pm THE SENSITIVITY AND FIELD OF HAND AND MEDLINE SEARCHING FOR CONTROLLED TIUALS IN US GENERAL MEDICAL JOURNALS Matthew Reynolds, Karen Robinson and Kay Dickersin Baltimore Cochrane Center University of Maryland Baltimore, Maryland Obiective: As part of the overall efforts of the Cochrane Collaboration to develop a comprehensive register of controlled trials, we compared the sensitivity and yield of electronic searching (ES) and hand searching (I-RI) for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non- randomized, controlled clinical trials (CCTs), for 11 US general medical journals for 1970, 1981, and 1992. De&m: We used the Cochrane Search Strategy, comprising three phases each successively more broad, to perform an Es of MBDLINB for each journal and year. ES scanners, trained to classify citations based on information in MBDLINE, reviewed the results. Bach journal issue for each year was also hand searched. Es scanners and hand searchers classified reports as RCTs, CCTs, or neither. Reports classified as RCTs and CCTs by both were combined to obtain a “gold standard”. Reports classified as CCT or RCT by only one searcher were assigned a fiil classification by an adjudicator. Results: ES identified 2,699 reports for scanning, and HS examined 13,699 articles for relevance. The gold standard inch&d 378 RCTs and 92 CCTs (total = 470), of which 13% were published in 1970, 30% in 1981, and 57% in 1992. Overall, ES found 81% of trials in the gold standard and HS found 84%. We do not know how many trials neither search identified. Es was least sensitive in 1970 when it recovered only 73% of know trials. Broad ES yielding many reports was necessary to identify articles published in 1970, probably because abstracts are not available on MBDLINB for 1966-75. Conch&n: Failure to identify all relevant trials for a systematic review and meta-analysis could result in biased findings. Both broad-based Es and HS are necessary to identify all trial reports. P129 STATE-OF-THE-ART IN VISION RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIALS Roberta W. Scherer and Kay Dickersln University of Maryland Baltimore,Maryland Objective: to assess the state-of-the-art in ophthalmology randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of preventive, diagnostic or treatment interventions. Methods: We hand-searched eight vision journals for RCTs published from 1988 to 1994. We excluded reports that did not include patient data or that only described methods unrelated to RCT design (e.g., technique to measure outcome). Design characteristics were extracted on a pre-tested form. Multiple RCTs within a single report were counted separately and duplicate reports of the same RCT were combined to extract RCT design characteristics. Results: We identified 532 reports describing 527 RCTs. Seventy-nine percent (415/527) of RCTs took place at a single center, and 68% (3601527) tested a treatment. Comparison groups were other patients in 72% (378/527), and the fellow eye in 19% (102/527) of RCTs.

P128 The sensitivity and yield of hand and medline searching for controlled trials in us general medical journals

Download PDF Report

Upload
matthew-reynolds
View
212
Download
0

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: P128 The sensitivity and yield of hand and medline searching for controlled trials in us general medical journals

Abstracts 189s

captured at the source, leave less room for misinterpretation and give a greater reliability to the subsequent me&analyses. Furthermore a large part the work of trial identification and data extraction, which is the origin of much of the resource use of a quality systematic review is thereby eliminated.

Pm THE SENSITIVITY AND FIELD OF HAND AND MEDLINE SEARCHING

FOR CONTROLLED TIUALS IN US GENERAL MEDICAL JOURNALS

Matthew Reynolds, Karen Robinson and Kay Dickersin Baltimore Cochrane Center

University of Maryland Baltimore, Maryland

Obiective: As part of the overall efforts of the Cochrane Collaboration to develop a comprehensive register of controlled trials, we compared the sensitivity and yield of electronic searching (ES) and hand searching (I-RI) for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non- randomized, controlled clinical trials (CCTs), for 11 US general medical journals for 1970, 1981, and 1992.

De&m: We used the Cochrane Search Strategy, comprising three phases each successively more broad, to perform an Es of MBDLINB for each journal and year. ES scanners, trained to classify citations based on information in MBDLINE, reviewed the results. Bach journal issue for each year was also hand searched. Es scanners and hand searchers classified reports as RCTs, CCTs, or neither. Reports classified as RCTs and CCTs by both were combined to obtain a “gold standard”. Reports classified as CCT or RCT by only one searcher were assigned a fiil classification by an adjudicator.

Results: ES identified 2,699 reports for scanning, and HS examined 13,699 articles for relevance. The gold standard inch&d 378 RCTs and 92 CCTs (total = 470), of which 13% were published in 1970, 30% in 1981, and 57% in 1992. Overall, ES found 81% of trials in the gold standard and HS found 84%. We do not know how many trials neither search identified. Es was least sensitive in 1970 when it recovered only 73% of know trials. Broad ES yielding many reports was necessary to identify articles published in 1970, probably because abstracts are not available on MBDLINB for 1966-75.

Conch&n: Failure to identify all relevant trials for a systematic review and meta-analysis could result in biased findings. Both broad-based Es and HS are necessary to identify all trial reports.

P129 STATE-OF-THE-ART IN VISION RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED

CLINICAL TRIALS

Roberta W. Scherer and Kay Dickersln University of Maryland Baltimore, Maryland

Objective: to assess the state-of-the-art in ophthalmology randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of preventive, diagnostic or treatment interventions.

Methods: We hand-searched eight vision journals for RCTs published from 1988 to 1994. We excluded reports that did not include patient data or that only described methods unrelated to RCT design (e.g., technique to measure outcome). Design characteristics were extracted on a pre-tested form. Multiple RCTs within a single report were counted separately and duplicate reports of the same RCT were combined to extract RCT design characteristics.

Results: We identified 532 reports describing 527 RCTs. Seventy-nine percent (415/527) of RCTs took place at a single center, and 68% (3601527) tested a treatment. Comparison groups were other patients in 72% (378/527), and the fellow eye in 19% (102/527) of RCTs.