• Victor M Montori, Nancy L Wilczynski, Douglas Morgan, R Brian Haynes, and Hedges Team.
• Department of Medicine, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Rochester, MN 55905, USA.
• BMJ. 2005 Jan 8; 330 (7482): 68.

ObjectiveTo develop optimal search strategies in Medline for retrieving systematic reviews.DesignAnalytical survey.Data Sources161 journals published in 2000 indexed in Medline.Main Outcome MeasuresThe sensitivity, specificity, and precision of retrieval of systematic reviews of 4862 unique terms in 782,485 combinations of one to five terms were determined by comparison with a hand search of all articles (the criterion standard) in 161 journals published during 2000 (49,028 articles).ResultsOnly 753 (1.5%) of the 49,028 articles were systematic reviews. The most sensitive strategy included five terms and had a sensitivity of 99.9% (95% confidence interval 99.6% to 100%) and a specificity of 52% (51.6% to 52.5%). The strategy that best minimised the difference between sensitivity and specificity had a sensitivity of 98% (97% to 99%) and specificity of 90.8% (90.5% to 91.1%). Highest precision for multiterm strategies, 57% (54% to 60%), was achieved at a sensitivity of 71% (68% to 74%). The term "cochrane database of systematic reviews.jn." was the most precise single term search strategy (sensitivity of 56% (52% to 60%) and precision of 96% (94% to 98%)). These strategies are available through the "limit" screen of Ovid's search interface for Medline.ConclusionsSystematic reviews can be retrieved from Medline with close to perfect sensitivity or specificity, or with high precision, by using empirical search strategies.

8 keywords...

hide…