Social Media in Clinical Practice by Bertalan Meskó [Book Review]

13 09 2013

How to review a book on Medical Social Media written by an author, who has learned you many Social Media skills himself?

Thanks to people like Bertalan Meskó, the author of the book concerned,  I am not a novice in the field of Medical Social Media.

But wouldn’t it be great if all newcomers in the medical social media field could benefit from Bertalan’s knowledge and expertise? Bertalan Meskó, a MD with a  Summa Cum Laude PhD degree in clinical genomics, has already shared his insights by posts on award-winning blog ScienceRoll, via Twitter and Webicina.com (an online service that curates health-related social media resources), by giving presentations and social media classes to medical students and physicians.

But many of his students rather read (or reread) the topics in a book instead of e-learning materials. Therefore Bertalan decided to write a handbook entitled “Social Media in Clinical Practice”.

This is the table of contents (for more complete overview see Amazon):

  1. Social media is transforming medicine and healthcare
  2. Using medical search engines with a special focus on Google
  3. Being up-to-date in medicine
  4. Community sites Facebook, Google+ and medical social networks
  5. The world of e-patients
  6. Establishing a medical blog
  7. The role of Twitter and microblogging in medicine
  8. Collaboration online
  9. Wikipedia and Medical Wikis
  10. Organizing medical events in virtual environments
  11. Medical smartphone and tablet applications
  12. Use of social media by hospitals and medical practices
  13. Medical video and podcast
  14. Creating presentations and slideshows
  15. E-mails and privacy concerns
  16. Social bookmarking
  17. Conclusions

As you can see, many social media tools are covered and in this respect the book is useful for everyone, including patients and consumers.

But what makes “Social Media in Clinical Practice” especially valuable for medical students and clinicians?

First, specific medical search engines/social media sites/tools are discussed, like (Pubmed [medical database, search engine], Sermo [Community site for US physicians], Medworm [aggregator of RSS feeds], medical smartphone apps and sources where to find them, Medical Wiki’s like Radiopaedia.
Scientific Social media sites, with possible relevance to physicians are also discussed, like Google Scholar and Wolphram Alpha.

Second, numerous medical examples are given (with links and descriptions). Often, examples are summarized in tables in the individual chapters (see Fig 1 for a random example 😉 ). Links can also be found at the end of the book, organized per chapter.

12-9-2013 7-20-28 Berci examples of blogs

Fig 1. Examples represented in a Table

Third, community sites and non-medical social media tools are discussed from the medical prespective. With regard to community sites and tools like Facebook, Twitter, Blogs and Email special emphasis is placed on (for clinicians very important) quality, privacy and legacy concerns, for instance the compliance of websites and blogs with the HONcode (HON=The Health On the Net Foundation) and HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act), the privacy settings in Facebook and Social Media Etiquette (see Fig 2).

12-9-2013 7-40-18 berci facebook patient

Fig. 2 Table from “Social Media in Clinical Practice” p 42

The chapters are succinctly written, well organized and replete with numerous examples. I specifically like the practical examples (see for instance Example #4).

12-9-2013 11-19-39 berci example

Fig 3 Example of Smartphone App for consumers

Some tools are explained in more detail, i.e. the anatomy of a tweet or a stepwise description how to launch a WordPress blog.
Most chapters end with a self test (questions),  next steps (encouraging to put the theory into practice) and key points.

Thus in many ways a very useful book for clinical practice (also see the positive reviews on Amazon and the review of Dean Giustini at his blog).

Are there any shortcomings, apart from the minimal language-shortcomings, mentioned by Dean?

Personally I find that discussions of the quality of websites concentrate a bit too much on the formal quality (contact info, title, subtitle etc)). True, it is of utmost importance, but quality is also determined by  content and clinical usefulness. Not all websites that are formally ok deliver good content and vice versa.

As a medical  librarian I pay particular attention to the search part, discussed in chapter 3 and 4.
Emphasis is put on how to create alerts in PubMed and Google Scholar, thus on the social media aspects. However searches are shown, that wouldn’t make physicians very happy, even if used as an alert: who wants a PubMed-alert for cardiovascular disease retrieving 1870195 hits? This is even more true for a the PubMed search “genetics” (rather meaningless yet non-comprehensive term).
More importantly, it is not explained when to use which search engine.  I understand that a search course is beyond the scope of this book, but a subtitle like “How to Get Better at Searching Online?” suggests otherwise. At least there should be hints that searching might be more complicated in practice, preferably with link to sources and online courses.  Getting too much hits or the wrong ones will only frustrate physicians (also to use the socia media tools, that are otherwise helpful).

But overall I find it a useful, clearly written and well structured practical handbook. “Social Media in Clinical Practice” is unique in his kind – I know of no other book that is alike-. Therefore I recommend it to all medical students and health care experts who are interested in digital medicine and social media.

This book will also be very useful to clinicians who are not very fond of social media. Their reluctance may change and their understanding of social medicine developed or enhanced.

Lets face it: a good clinician can’t do without digital knowledge. At the very least his patients use the internet and he must be able to act as a gatekeeper identifying and filtering thrustworty, credible and understandable information. Indeed, as Berci writes in his conclusion:

“it obviously is not a goal to transform all physicians into bloggers and Twitter users, but (..) each physician should find the platforms, tools and solutions that can assist them in their workflow.”

If not convinced I would recommend clinicians to read the blog post written at the the Fauquier ENT-blog (refererred to by Bertalan in chapter 6, #story 5) entiteld: As A Busy Physician, Why Do I Even Bother Blogging?

SM in Practice (AMAZON)

Book information: (also see Amazon):

  • Title: Social Media in Clinical Practice
  • Author: Bertalan Meskó
  • Publisher: Springer London Heidelberg New York Dordrecht
  • 155 pages
  • ISBN 978-1-4471-4305-5
  • ISBN 978-1-4471-4306-2 (eBook)
  • ISBN-10: 1447143051
  • DOI 10.1007/978-1-4471-4306-2
  • $37.99 (Sept 2013) (pocket at Amazon)




No, Google Scholar Shouldn’t be Used Alone for Systematic Review Searching

9 07 2013

Several papers have addressed the usefulness of Google Scholar as a source for systematic review searching. Unfortunately the quality of those papers is often well below the mark.

In 2010 I already [1]  (in the words of Isla Kuhn [2]) “robustly rebutted” the Anders’ paper PubMed versus Google Scholar for Retrieving Evidence” [3] at this blog.

But earlier this year another controversial paper was published [4]:

“Is the coverage of google scholar enough to be used alone for systematic reviews?

It is one of the highly accessed papers of BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making and has been welcomed in (for instance) the Twittosphere.

Researchers seem  to blindly accept the conclusions of the paper:

But don’t rush  and assume you can now forget about PubMed, MEDLINE, Cochrane and EMBASE for your systematic review search and just do a simple Google Scholar (GS) search instead.

You might  throw the baby out with the bath water….

… As has been immediately recognized by many librarians, either at their blogs (see blogs of Dean Giustini [5], Patricia Anderson [6] and Isla Kuhn [1]) or as direct comments to the paper (by Tuulevi OvaskaMichelle Fiander and Alison Weightman [7].

In their paper, Jean-François Gehanno et al examined whether GS was able to retrieve all the 738 original studies included in 29 Cochrane and JAMA systematic reviews.

And YES! GS had a coverage of 100%!

WOW!

All those fools at the Cochrane who do exhaustive searches in multiple databases using controlled vocabulary and a lot of synonyms when a simple search in GS could have sufficed…

But it is a logical fallacy to conclude from their findings that GS alone will suffice for SR-searching.

Firstly, as Tuulevi [7] rightly points out :

“Of course GS will find what you already know exists”

Or in the words of one of the official reviewers [8]:

What the authors show is only that if one knows what studies should be identified, then one can go to GS, search for them one by one, and find out that they are indexed. But, if a researcher already knows the studies that should be included in a systematic review, why bother to also check whether those studies are indexed in GS?

Right!

Secondly, it is also the precision that counts.

As Dean explains at his blog a 100% recall with a precision of 0,1% (and it can be worse!) means that in order to find 36 relevant papers you have to go through  ~36,700 items.

Dean:

Are the authors suggesting that researchers consider a precision level of 0.1% acceptable for the SR? Who has time to sift through that amount of information?

It is like searching for needles in a haystack.  Correction: It is like searching for particular hay stalks in a hay stack. It is very difficult to find them if they are hidden among other hay stalks. Suppose the hay stalks were all labeled (title), and I would have a powerful haystalk magnet (“title search”)  it would be a piece of cake to retrieve them. This is what we call “known item search”. But would you even consider going through the haystack and check the stalks one by one? Because that is what we have to do if we use Google Scholar as a one stop search tool for systematic reviews.

Another main point of criticism is that the authors have a grave and worrisome lack of understanding of the systematic review methodology [6] and don’t grasp the importance of the search interface and knowledge of indexing which are both integral to searching for systematic reviews.[7]

One wonders why the paper even passed the peer review, as one of the two reviewers (Miguel Garcia-Perez [8]) already smashed the paper to pieces.

The authors’ method is inadequate and their conclusion is not logically connected to their results. No revision (major, minor, or discretionary) will save this work. (…)

Miguel’s well funded criticism was not well addressed by the authors [9]. Apparently the editors didn’t see through and relied on the second peer reviewer [10], who merely said it was a “great job” etcetera, but that recall should not be written with a capital R.
(and that was about the only revision the authors made)

Perhaps it needs another paper to convince Gehanno et al and the uncritical readers of their manuscript.

Such a paper might just have been published [11]. It is written by Dean Giustini and Maged Kamel Boulos and is entitled:

Google Scholar is not enough to be used alone for systematic reviews

It is a simple and straightforward paper, but it makes its points clearly.

Giustini and Kamel Boulos looked for a recent SR in their own area of expertise (Chou et al [12]), that included a comparable number of references as that of Gehanno et al. Next they test GS’ ability to locate these references.

Although most papers cited by Chou et al. (n=476/506;  ~95%) were ultimately found in GS, numerous iterative searches were required to find the references and each citation had to be managed once at a time. Thus GS was not able to locate all references found by Chou et al. and the whole exercise was rather cumbersome.

As expected, trying to find the papers by a “real-life” GS search was almost impossible. Because due to its rudimentary structure, GS did not understand the expert search strings and was unable to translate them. Thus using Chou et al.’s original search strategy and keywords yielded unmanageable results of approximately >750,000 items.

Giustini and Kamel Boulos note that GS’ ability to search into the full-text of papers combined with its PageRank’s algorithm can be useful.

On the other hand GS’ changing content, unknown updating practices and poor reliability make it an inappropriate sole choice for systematic reviewers:

As searchers, we were often uncertain that results found one day in GS had not changed a day later and trying to replicate searches with date delimiters in GS did not help. Papers found today in GS did not mean they would be there tomorrow.

But most importantly, not all known items could be found and the search process and selection are too cumbersome.

Thus shall we now for once and for all conclude that GS is NOT sufficient to be used alone for SR searching?

We don’t need another bad paper addressing this.

But I would really welcome a well performed paper looking at the additional value of a GS in SR-searching. For I am sure that GS may be valuable for some questions and some topics in some respects. We have to find out which.

References

  1. PubMed versus Google Scholar for Retrieving Evidence 2010/06 (laikaspoetnik.wordpress.com)
  2. Google scholar for systematic reviews…. hmmmm  2013/01 (ilk21.wordpress.com)
  3. Anders M.E. & Evans D.P. (2010) Comparison of PubMed and Google Scholar literature searches, Respiratory care, May;55(5):578-83  PMID:
  4. Gehanno J.F., Rollin L. & Darmoni S. (2013). Is the coverage of Google Scholar enough to be used alone for systematic reviews., BMC medical informatics and decision making, 13:7  PMID:  (open access)
  5. Is Google scholar enough for SR searching? No. 2013/01 (blogs.ubc.ca/dean)
  6. What’s Wrong With Google Scholar for “Systematic” Review 2013/01 (etechlib.wordpress.com)
  7. Comments at Gehanno’s paper (www.biomedcentral.com)
  8. Official Reviewer’s report of Gehanno’s paper [1]: Miguel Garcia-Perez, 2012/09
  9. Authors response to comments  (www.biomedcentral.com)
  10. Official Reviewer’s report of Gehanno’s paper [2]: Henrik von Wehrden, 2012/10
  11. Giustini D. & Kamel Boulos M.N. (2013). Google Scholar is not enough to be used alone for systematic reviews, Online Journal of Public Health Informatics, 5 (2) DOI:
  12. Chou W.Y.S., Prestin A., Lyons C. & Wen K.Y. (2013). Web 2.0 for Health Promotion: Reviewing the Current Evidence, American Journal of Public Health, 103 (1) e9-e18. DOI:




The Scatter of Medical Research and What to do About it.

18 05 2012

ResearchBlogging.orgPaul Glasziou, GP and professor in Evidence Based Medicine, co-authored a new article in the BMJ [1]. Similar to another paper [2] I discussed before [3] this paper deals with the difficulty for clinicians of staying up-to-date with the literature. But where the previous paper [2,3] highlighted the mere increase in number of research articles over time, the current paper looks at the scatter of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews (SR’s) accross different journals cited in one year (2009) in PubMed.

Hofmann et al analyzed 7 specialties and 9 sub-specialties, that are considered the leading contributions to the burden of disease in high income countries.

They followed a relative straightforward method for identifying the publications. Each search string consisted of a MeSH term (controlled  term) to identify the selected disease or disorders, a publication type [pt] to identify the type of study, and the year of publication. For example, the search strategy for randomized trials in cardiology was: “heart diseases”[MeSH] AND randomized controlled trial[pt] AND 2009[dp]. (when searching “heart diseases” as a MeSH, narrower terms are also searched.) Meta-analysis[pt] was used to identify systematic reviews.

Using this approach Hofmann et al found 14 343 RCTs and 3214 SR’s published in 2009 in the field of the selected (sub)specialties. There was a clear scatter across journals, but this scatter varied considerably among specialties:

“Otolaryngology had the least scatter (363 trials across 167 journals) and neurology the most (2770 trials across 896 journals). In only three subspecialties (lung cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, hearing loss) were 10 or fewer journals needed to locate 50% of trials. The scatter was less for systematic reviews: hearing loss had the least scatter (10 reviews across nine journals) and cancer the most (670 reviews across 279 journals). For some specialties and subspecialties the papers were concentrated in specialty journals; whereas for others, few of the top 10 journals were a specialty journal for that area.
Generally, little overlap occurred between the top 10 journals publishing trials and those publishing systematic reviews. The number of journals required to find all trials or reviews was highly correlated (r=0.97) with the number of papers for each specialty/ subspecialty.”

Previous work already suggested that this scatter of research has a long tail. Half of the publications is in a minority of papers, whereas the remaining articles are scattered among many journals (see Fig below).

Click to enlarge en see legends at BMJ 2012;344:e3223 [CC]

The good news is that SRs are less scattered and that general journals appear more often in the top 10 journals publishing SRs. Indeed for 6 of the 7 specialties and 4 of the 9 subspecialties, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews had published the highest number of systematic reviews, publishing between 6% and 18% of all the systematic reviews published in each area in 2009. The bad news is that even keeping up to date with SRs seems a huge, if not impossible, challenge.

In other words, it is not sufficient for clinicians to rely on personal subscriptions to a few journals in their specialty (which is common practice). Hoffmann et al suggest several solutions to help clinicians cope with the increasing volume and scatter of research publications.

  • a central library of systematic reviews (but apparently the Cochrane Library fails to fulfill such a role according to the authors, because many reviews are out of date and are perceived as less clinically relevant)
  • registry of planned and completed systematic reviews, such as prospero. (this makes it easier to locate SRs and reduces bias)
  • Synthesis of Evidence and synopses, like the ACP-Jounal Club which summarizes the best evidence in internal medicine
  • Specialised databases that collate and critically appraise randomized trials and systematic reviews, like www.pedro.org.au for physical therapy. In my personal experience, however, this database is often out of date and not comprehensive
  • Journal scanning services like EvidenceUpdates from mcmaster.ca), which scans over 120 journals, filters articles on the basis of quality, has practising clinicians rate them for relevance and newsworthiness, and makes them available as email alerts and in a searchable database. I use this service too, but besides that not all specialties are covered, the rating of evidence may not always be objective (see previous post [4])
  • The use of social media tools to alert clinicians to important new research.

Most of these solutions are (long) existing solutions that do not or only partly help to solve the information overload.

I was surprised that the authors didn’t propose the use of personalized alerts. PubMed’s My NCBI feature allows to create automatic email alerts on a topic and to subscribe to electronic tables of contents (which could include ACP journal Club). Suppose that a physician browses 10 journals roughly covering 25% of the trials. He/she does not need to read all the other journals from cover to cover to avoid missing one potentially relevant trial. Instead it is far more efficient to perform a topic search to filter relevant studies from journals that seldom publish trials on the topic of interest. One could even use the search of Hoffmann et al to achieve this.* Although in reality, most clinical researchers will have narrower fields of interest than all studies about endocrinology and neurology.

At our library we are working at creating deduplicated, easy to read, alerts that collate table of contents of certain journals with topic (and author) searches in PubMed, EMBASE and other databases. There are existing tools that do the same.

Another way to reduce the individual work (reading) load is to organize journals clubs or even better organize regular CATs (critical appraised topics). In the Netherlands, CATS are a compulsory item for residents. A few doctors do the work for many. Usually they choose topics that are clinically relevant (or for which the evidence is unclear).

The authors shortly mention that their search strategy might have missed  missed some eligible papers and included some that are not truly RCTs or SRs, because they relied on PubMed’s publication type to retrieve RCTs and SRs. For systematic reviews this may be a greater problem than recognized, for the authors have used meta-analyses[pt] to identify systematic reviews. Unfortunately PubMed has no publication type for systematic reviews, but it may be clear that there are many more systematic reviews that meta-analyses. Possibly systematical reviews might even have a different scatter pattern than meta-analyses (i.e. the latter might be preferentially included in core journals).

Furthermore not all meta-analyses and systematic reviews are reviews of RCTs (thus it is not completely fair to compare MAs with RCTs only). On the other hand it is a (not discussed) omission of this study, that only interventions are considered. Nowadays physicians have many other questions than those related to therapy, like questions about prognosis, harm and diagnosis.

I did a little imperfect search just to see whether use of other search terms than meta-analyses[pt] would have any influence on the outcome. I search for (1) meta-analyses [pt] and (2) systematic review [tiab] (title and abstract) of papers about endocrine diseases. Then I subtracted 1 from 2 (to analyse the systematic reviews not indexed as meta-analysis[pt])

Thus:

(ENDOCRINE DISEASES[MESH] AND SYSTEMATIC REVIEW[TIAB] AND 2009[DP]) NOT META-ANALYSIS[PT]

I analyzed the top 10/11 journals publishing these study types.

This little experiment suggests that:

  1. the precise scatter might differ per search: apparently the systematic review[tiab] search yielded different top 10/11 journals (for this sample) than the meta-analysis[pt] search. (partially because Cochrane systematic reviews apparently don’t mention systematic reviews in title and abstract?).
  2. the authors underestimate the numbers of Systematic Reviews: simply searching for systematic review[tiab] already found appr. 50% additional systematic reviews compared to meta-analysis[pt] alone
  3. As expected (by me at last), many of the SR’s en MA’s were NOT dealing with interventions, i.e. see the first 5 hits (out of 108 and 236 respectively).
  4. Together these findings indicate that the true information overload is far greater than shown by Hoffmann et al (not all systematic reviews are found, of all available search designs only RCTs are searched).
  5. On the other hand this indirectly shows that SRs are a better way to keep up-to-date than suggested: SRs  also summarize non-interventional research (the ratio SRs of RCTs: individual RCTs is much lower than suggested)
  6. It also means that the role of the Cochrane Systematic reviews to aggregate RCTs is underestimated by the published graphs (the MA[pt] section is diluted with non-RCT- systematic reviews, thus the proportion of the Cochrane SRs in the interventional MAs becomes larger)

Well anyway, these imperfections do not contradict the main point of this paper: that trials are scattered across hundreds of general and specialty journals and that “systematic reviews” (or meta-analyses really) do reduce the extent of scatter, but are still widely scattered and mostly in different journals to those of randomized trials.

Indeed, personal subscriptions to journals seem insufficient for keeping up to date.
Besides supplementing subscription by  methods such as journal scanning services, I would recommend the use of personalized alerts from PubMed and several prefiltered sources including an EBM search machine like TRIP (www.tripdatabase.com/).

*but I would broaden it to find all aggregate evidence, including ACP, Clinical Evidence, syntheses and synopses, not only meta-analyses.

**I do appreciate that one of the co-authors is a medical librarian: Sarah Thorning.

References

  1. Hoffmann, Tammy, Erueti, Chrissy, Thorning, Sarah, & Glasziou, Paul (2012). The scatter of research: cross sectional comparison of randomised trials and systematic reviews across specialties BMJ, 344 : 10.1136/bmj.e3223
  2. Bastian, H., Glasziou, P., & Chalmers, I. (2010). Seventy-Five Trials and Eleven Systematic Reviews a Day: How Will We Ever Keep Up? PLoS Medicine, 7 (9) DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000326
  3. How will we ever keep up with 75 trials and 11 systematic reviews a day (laikaspoetnik.wordpress.com)
  4. Experience versus Evidence [1]. Opioid Therapy for Rheumatoid Arthritis Pain. (laikaspoetnik.wordpress.com)




“Pharmacological Action” in PubMed has no True Equivalent in OVID MEDLINE

11 01 2012

Searching for EMBASE Subject Headings (the EMBASE index terms) for drugs is relatively straight forward in EMBASE.

When you want to search for aromatase inhibitors you first search for the Subject Heading mapping to aromatase inhibitors (aromatase inhibitor). Next you explode aromatase inhibitor/ if you are interested in all its narrower terms. If not, you search both for the general term aromatase inhibitor and those specific narrower terms you want to include.
Exploding aromatase inhibitor (exp aromatase inhibitor/) yields 15938 results. That is approximately twice what you get by searching aromatase inhibitor/ alone (not exploded). This yields 7434 hits.

It is different in MEDLINE. If you search for aromatase inhibitors in the MeSH database you get two suggestions.

The first index term “Aromatase Inhibitors” is a Mesh. It has no narrower terms.
Drug-Mesh are generally not arranged by working mechanism, but by chemical structure/type of compound. That is often confusing. Spironolactone for instance belongs to the MeSH Lactones (and Pregnenes) not to the MeSH Aldosterone Antagonists or Androgen Antagonist. Most Clinicians want to search for a group of compounds with the same mechanism of action, not the same biochemical family

The second term “Aromatase Inhibitors” [Pharmacological Action]  however does stand for the working mechanism. It does have narrower terms, including 2 MeSH terms (highlighted) and various substance names, also called Supplementary Concepts. 

For complete results you have to search for both MeSH and Pharmacological action: “Aromatase Inhibitors”[Mesh] yields 3930 records, whereas (“Aromatase Inhibitors”[Mesh]) OR “Aromatase Inhibitors” [Pharmacological Action] yields 6045. That is a lot more.

I usually don’t search PubMed, but OVID MEDLINE.

I know that Pharmacological Action-subheadings are important, so I tried to find the equivalent in OVID .

I found the MeSH Aromatase Inhibitors, but -unlike PubMed- OVID showed only two narrower Drug Terms (called Non-MeSH here versus MeSH in PubMed).

I found that odd.

I reasoned “Pharmacological action” might perhaps be combined with the MESH in OVID MEDLINE. This was later confirmed by Melissa Rethlefsen (see Twitter discussion below)

In Ovid MEDLINE I got 3937 hits with Aromatase Inhibitors/ and 5219 with exp Aromatase Inhibitors/ (thus including aminogluthemide or Fadrozole)

At this point I checked PubMed (shown above). Here I found  that “Aromatase Inhibitors”[Mesh] OR “Aromatase Inhibitors” [Pharmacological Action] yielded 6045 hits in PubMed, against 5219 in OVID MEDLINE for exp Aromatase Inhibitors/

The specific aromatase inhibitors Aminogluthemide/and Fadrozole/ [set 60] accounted fully for the difference  between exploded [set 59] and non-exploded Aromatase Inhibitors[set 58].

But what explained the gap of approximately 800 records between “Aromatase Inhibitors”[Mesh] OR “Aromatase Inhibitors”[Pharmacological Action]* in PubMed and exp aromatase inhibitors/ in OVID MEDLINE?

Could it be the substance names, mentioned under “Aromatase Inhibitors”[Pharmacological Action], I wondered?

Thus I added all the individual substance names in OVID MEDLINE (code= .rn.). See search set 61 below.

Indeed these accounted fully for the difference (set 62= 59 or 61 : the total number of hits in PubMed is similar)

It obviously is a mistake of OVID MEDLINE and I will inform them.

For the meanwhile, take care to add the individual substance names when you search for drug terms that have a pharmacological action-equivalent in PubMed. The substance names are not automatically searched when exploding the MeSH-term in OVID MEDLINE.

——–

For more info on Pharmacological action, see: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/bsd/disted/mesh/paterms.html

Twitter Discussion between me and Melissa Rethlefsen about the discrepancy between PubMed and OVID MEDLINE (again showing how helpful Twitter can be for immediate discussions and exchange of thoughts)

[read from bottom to top]





Evidence Based Point of Care Summaries [2] More Uptodate with Dynamed.

18 10 2011

ResearchBlogging.orgThis post is part of a short series about Evidence Based Point of Care Summaries or POCs. In this series I will review 3 recent papers that objectively compare a selection of POCs.

In the previous post I reviewed a paper from Rita Banzi and colleagues from the Italian Cochrane Centre [1]. They analyzed 18 POCs with respect to their “volume”, content development and editorial policy. There were large differences among POCs, especially with regard to evidence-based methodology scores, but no product appeared the best according to the criteria used.

In this post I will review another paper by Banzi et al, published in the BMJ a few weeks ago [2].

This article examined the speed with which EBP-point of care summaries were updated using a prospective cohort design.

First the authors selected all the systematic reviews signaled by the American College of Physicians (ACP) Journal Club and Evidence-Based Medicine Primary Care and Internal Medicine from April to December 2009. In the same period the authors selected all the Cochrane systematic reviews labelled as “conclusion changed” in the Cochrane Library. In total 128 systematic reviews were retrieved, 68 from the literature surveillance journals (53%) and 60 (47%) from the Cochrane Library. Two months after the collection started (June 2009) the authors did a monthly screen for a year to look for potential citation of the identified 128 systematic reviews in the POCs.

Only those 5 POCs were studied that were ranked in the top quarter for at least 2 (out of 3) desirable dimensions, namely: Clinical Evidence, Dynamed, EBM Guidelines, UpToDate and eMedicine. Surprisingly eMedicine was among the selected POCs, having a rating of “1” on a scale of 1 to 15 for EBM methodology. One would think that Evidence-based-ness is a fundamental prerequisite  for EBM-POCs…..?!

Results were represented as a (rather odd, but clear) “survival analysis” ( “death” = a citation in a summary).

Fig.1 : Updating curves for relevant evidence by POCs (from [2])

I will be brief about the results.

Dynamed clearly beated all the other products  in its updating speed.

Expressed in figures, the updating speed of Dynamed was 78% and 97% greater than those of EBM Guidelines and Clinical Evidence, respectively. Dynamed had a median citation rate of around two months and EBM Guidelines around 10 months, quite close to the limit of the follow-up, but the citation rate of the other three point of care summaries (UpToDate, eMedicine, Clinical Evidence) were so slow that they exceeded the follow-up period and the authors could not compute the median.

Dynamed outperformed the other POC’s in updating of systematic reviews independent of the route. EBM Guidelines and UpToDate had similar overall updating rates, but Cochrane systematic reviews were more likely to be cited by EBM Guidelines than by UpToDate (odds ratio 0.02, P<0.001). Perhaps not surprising, as EBM Guidelines has a formal agreement with the Cochrane Collaboration to use Cochrane contents and label its summaries as “Cochrane inside.” On the other hand, UpToDate was faster than EBM Guidelines in updating systematic reviews signaled by literature surveillance journals.

Dynamed‘s higher updating ability was not due to a difference in identifying important new evidence, but to the speed with which this new information was incorporated in their summaries. Possibly the central updating of Dynamed by the editorial team might account for the more prompt inclusion of evidence.

As the authors rightly point out, slowness in updating could mean that new relevant information is ignored and could thus affect the validity of point of care information services”.

A slower updating rate may be considered more important for POCs that “promise” to “continuously update their evidence summaries” (EBM-Guidelines) or to “perform a continuous comprehensive review and to revise chapters whenever important new information is published, not according to any specific time schedule” (UpToDate). (see table with description of updating mechanisms )

In contrast, Emedicine doesn’t provide any detailed information on updating policy, another reason that it doesn’t belong to this list of best POCs.
Clinical Evidence, however, clearly states, We aim to update Clinical Evidence reviews annually. In addition to this cycle, details of clinically important studies are added to the relevant reviews throughout the year using the BMJ Updates service.” But BMJ Updates is not considered in the current analysis. Furthermore, patience is rewarded with excellent and complete summaries of evidence (in my opinion).

Indeed a major limitation of the current (and the previous) study by Banzi et al [1,2] is that they have looked at quantitative aspects and items that are relatively “easy to score”, like “volume” and “editorial quality”, not at the real quality of the evidence (previous post).

Although the findings were new to me, others have recently published similar results (studies were performed in the same time-span):

Shurtz and Foster [3] of the Texas A&M University Medical Sciences Library (MSL) also sought to establish a rubric for evaluating evidence-based medicine (EBM) point-of-care tools in a health sciences library.

They, too, looked at editorial quality and speed of updating plus reviewing content, search options, quality control, and grading.

Their main conclusion is that “differences between EBM tools’ options, content coverage, and usability were minimal, but that the products’ methods for locating and grading evidence varied widely in transparency and process”.

Thus this is in line with what Banzi et al reported in their first paper. They also share Banzi’s conclusion about differences in speed of updating

“DynaMed had the most up-to-date summaries (updated on average within 19 days), while First Consult had the least up to date (updated on average within 449 days). Six tools claimed to update summaries within 6 months or less. For the 10 topics searched, however, only DynaMed met this claim.”

Table 3 from Shurtz and Foster [3] 

Ketchum et al [4] also conclude that DynaMed the largest proportion of current (2007-2009) references (170/1131, 15%). In addition they found that Dynamed had the largest total number of references (1131/2330, 48.5%).

Yes, and you might have guessed it. The paper of Andrea Ketchum is the 3rd paper I’m going to review.

I also recommend to read the paper of the librarians Shurtz and Foster [3], which I found along the way. It has too much overlap with the Banzi papers to devote a separate post to it. Still it provides better background information then the Banzi papers, it focuses on POCs that claim to be EBM and doesn’t try to weigh one element over another. 

References

  1. Banzi, R., Liberati, A., Moschetti, I., Tagliabue, L., & Moja, L. (2010). A Review of Online Evidence-based Practice Point-of-Care Information Summary Providers Journal of Medical Internet Research, 12 (3) DOI: 10.2196/jmir.1288
  2. Banzi, R., Cinquini, M., Liberati, A., Moschetti, I., Pecoraro, V., Tagliabue, L., & Moja, L. (2011). Speed of updating online evidence based point of care summaries: prospective cohort analysis BMJ, 343 (sep22 2) DOI: 10.1136/bmj.d5856
  3. Shurtz, S., & Foster, M. (2011). Developing and using a rubric for evaluating evidence-based medicine point-of-care tools Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA, 99 (3), 247-254 DOI: 10.3163/1536-5050.99.3.012
  4. Ketchum, A., Saleh, A., & Jeong, K. (2011). Type of Evidence Behind Point-of-Care Clinical Information Products: A Bibliometric Analysis Journal of Medical Internet Research, 13 (1) DOI: 10.2196/jmir.1539
  5. Evidence Based Point of Care Summaries [1] No “Best” Among the Bests? (laikaspoetnik.wordpress.com)
  6. How will we ever keep up with 75 Trials and 11 Systematic Reviews a Day? (laikaspoetnik.wordpress.com
  7. UpToDate or Dynamed? (Shamsha Damani at laikaspoetnik.wordpress.com)
  8. How Evidence Based is UpToDate really? (laikaspoetnik.wordpress.com)

Related articles (automatically generated)





FUTON Bias. Or Why Limiting to Free Full Text Might not Always be a Good Idea.

8 09 2011

ResearchBlogging.orgA few weeks ago I was discussing possible relevant papers for the Twitter Journal Club  (Hashtag #TwitJC), a succesful initiative on Twitter, that I have discussed previously here and here [7,8].

I proposed an article, that appeared behind a paywall. Annemarie Cunningham (@amcunningham) immediately ran the idea down, stressing that open-access (OA) is a pre-requisite for the TwitJC journal club.

One of the TwitJC organizers, Fi Douglas (@fidouglas on Twitter), argued that using paid-for journals would defeat the objective that  #TwitJC is open to everyone. I can imagine that fee-based articles could set a too high threshold for many doctors. In addition, I sympathize with promoting OA.

However, I disagree with Annemarie that an OA (or rather free) paper is a prerequisite if you really want to talk about what might impact on practice. On the contrary, limiting to free full text (FFT) papers in PubMed might lead to bias: picking “low hanging fruit of convenience” might mean that the paper isn’t representative and/or doesn’t reflect the current best evidence.

But is there evidence for my theory that selecting FFT papers might lead to bias?

Lets first look at the extent of the problem. Which percentage of papers do we miss by limiting for free-access papers?

survey in PLOS by Björk et al [1] found that one in five peer reviewed research papers published in 2008 were freely available on the internet. Overall 8,5% of the articles published in 2008 (and 13,9 % in Medicine) were freely available at the publishers’ sites (gold OA).  For an additional 11,9% free manuscript versions could be found via the green route:  i.e. copies in repositories and web sites (7,8% in Medicine).
As a commenter rightly stated, the lag time is also important, as we would like to have immediate access to recently published research, yet some publishers (37%) impose an access-embargo of 6-12 months or more. (these papers were largely missed as the 2008 OA status was assessed late 2009).

PLOS 2009

The strength of the paper is that it measures  OA prevalence on an article basis, not on calculating the share of journals which are OA: an OA journal generally contains a lower number of articles.
The authors randomly sampled from 1.2 million articles using the advanced search facility of Scopus. They measured what share of OA copies the average researcher would find using Google.

Another paper published in  J Med Libr Assoc (2009) [2], using similar methods as the PLOS survey examined the state of open access (OA) specifically in the biomedical field. Because of its broad coverage and popularity in the biomedical field, PubMed was chosen to collect their target sample of 4,667 articles. Matsubayashi et al used four different databases and search engines to identify full text copies. The authors reported an OA percentage of 26,3 for peer reviewed articles (70% of all articles), which is comparable to the results of Björk et al. More than 70% of the OA articles were provided through journal websites. The percentages of green OA articles from the websites of authors or in institutional repositories was quite low (5.9% and 4.8%, respectively).

In their discussion of the findings of Matsubayashi et al, Björk et al. [1] quickly assessed the OA status in PubMed by using the new “link to Free Full Text” search facility. First they searched for all “journal articles” published in 2005 and then repeated this with the further restrictions of “link to FFT”. The PubMed OA percentages obtained this way were 23,1 for 2005 and 23,3 for 2008.

This proportion of biomedical OA papers is gradually increasing. A chart in Nature’s News Blog [9] shows that the proportion of papers indexed on the PubMed repository each year has increased from 23% in 2005 to above 28% in 2009.
(Methods are not shown, though. The 2008 data are higher than those of Björk et al, who noticed little difference with 2005. The Data for this chart, however, are from David Lipman, NCBI director and driving force behind the digital OA archive PubMed Central).
Again, because of the embargo periods, not all literature is immediately available at the time that it is published.

In summary, we would miss about 70% of biomedical papers by limiting for FFT papers. However, we would miss an even larger proportion of papers if we limit ourselves to recently published ones.

Of course, the key question is whether ignoring relevant studies not available in full text really matters.

Reinhard Wentz of the Imperial College Library and Information Service already argued in a visionary 2002 Lancet letter[3] that the availability of full-text articles on the internet might have created a new form of bias: FUTON bias (Full Text On the Net bias).

Wentz reasoned that FUTON bias will not affect researchers who are used to comprehensive searches of published medical studies, but that it will affect staff and students with limited experience in doing searches and that it might have the same effect in daily clinical practice as publication bias or language bias when doing systematic reviews of published studies.

Wentz also hypothesized that FUTON bias (together with no abstract available (NAA) bias) will affect the visibility and the impact factor of OA journals. He makes a reasonable cause that the NAA-bias will affect publications on new, peripheral, and under-discussion subjects more than established topics covered in substantive reports.

The study of Murali et al [4] published in Mayo Proceedings 2004 confirms that the availability of journals on MEDLINE as FUTON or NAA affects their impact factor.

Of the 324 journals screened by Murali et al. 38.3% were FUTON, 19.1%  NAA and 42.6% had abstracts only. The mean impact factor was 3.24 (±0.32), 1.64 (±0.30), and 0.14 (±0.45), respectively! The authors confirmed this finding by showing a difference in impact factors for journals available in both the pre and the post-Internet era (n=159).

Murali et al informally questioned many physicians and residents at multiple national and international meetings in 2003. These doctors uniformly admitted relying on FUTON articles on the Web to answer a sizable proportion of their questions. A study by Carney et al (2004) [5] showed  that 98% of the US primary care physicians used the Internet as a resource for clinical information at least once a week and mostly used FUTON articles to aid decisions about patient care or patient education and medical student or resident instruction.

Murali et al therefore conclude that failure to consider FUTON bias may not only affect a journal’s impact factor, but could also limit consideration of medical literature by ignoring relevant for-fee articles and thereby influence medical education akin to publication or language bias.

This proposed effect of the FFT limit on citation retrieval for clinical questions, was examined in a  more recent study (2008), published in J Med Libr Assoc [6].

Across all 4 questions based on a research agenda for physical therapy, the FFT limit reduced the number of citations to 11.1% of the total number of citations retrieved without the FFT limit in PubMed.

Even more important, high-quality evidence such as systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials were missed when the FFT limit was used.

For example, when searching without the FFT limit, 10 systematic reviews of RCTs were retrieved against one when the FFT limit was used. Likewise when searching without the FFT limit, 28 RCTs were retrieved and only one was retrieved when the FFT limit was used.

The proportion of missed studies (appr. 90%) is higher than in the studies mentioned above. Possibly this is because real searches have been tested and that only relevant clinical studies  have been considered.

The authors rightly conclude that consistently missing high-quality evidence when searching clinical questions is problematic because it undermines the process of Evicence Based Practice. Krieger et al finally conclude:

“Librarians can educate health care consumers, scientists, and clinicians about the effects that the FFT limit may have on their information retrieval and the ways it ultimately may affect their health care and clinical decision making.”

It is the hope of this librarian that she did a little education in this respect and clarified the point that limiting to free full text might not always be a good idea. Especially if the aim is to critically appraise a topic, to educate or to discuss current best medical practice.

References

  1. Björk, B., Welling, P., Laakso, M., Majlender, P., Hedlund, T., & Guðnason, G. (2010). Open Access to the Scientific Journal Literature: Situation 2009 PLoS ONE, 5 (6) DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0011273
  2. Matsubayashi, M., Kurata, K., Sakai, Y., Morioka, T., Kato, S., Mine, S., & Ueda, S. (2009). Status of open access in the biomedical field in 2005 Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA, 97 (1), 4-11 DOI: 10.3163/1536-5050.97.1.002
  3. WENTZ, R. (2002). Visibility of research: FUTON bias The Lancet, 360 (9341), 1256-1256 DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(02)11264-5
  4. Murali NS, Murali HR, Auethavekiat P, Erwin PJ, Mandrekar JN, Manek NJ, & Ghosh AK (2004). Impact of FUTON and NAA bias on visibility of research. Mayo Clinic proceedings. Mayo Clinic, 79 (8), 1001-6 PMID: 15301326
  5. Carney PA, Poor DA, Schifferdecker KE, Gephart DS, Brooks WB, & Nierenberg DW (2004). Computer use among community-based primary care physician preceptors. Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges, 79 (6), 580-90 PMID: 15165980
  6. Krieger, M., Richter, R., & Austin, T. (2008). An exploratory analysis of PubMed’s free full-text limit on citation retrieval for clinical questions Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA, 96 (4), 351-355 DOI: 10.3163/1536-5050.96.4.010
  7. The #TwitJC Twitter Journal Club, a new Initiative on Twitter. Some Initial Thoughts. (laikaspoetnik.wordpress.com)
  8. The Second #TwitJC Twitter Journal Club (laikaspoetnik.wordpress.com)
  9. How many research papers are freely available? (blogs.nature.com)




PubMed’s Higher Sensitivity than OVID MEDLINE… & other Published Clichés.

21 08 2011

ResearchBlogging.orgIs it just me, or are biomedical papers about searching for a systematic review often of low quality or just too damn obvious? I’m seldom excited about papers dealing with optimal search strategies or peculiarities of PubMed, even though it is my specialty.
It is my impression, that many of the lower quality and/or less relevant papers are written by clinicians/researchers instead of information specialists (or at least no medical librarian as the first author).

I can’t help thinking that many of those authors just happen to see an odd feature in PubMed or encounter an unexpected  phenomenon in the process of searching for a systematic review.
They think: “Hey, that’s interesting” or “that’s odd. Lets write a paper about it.” An easy way to boost our scientific output!
What they don’t realize is that the published findings are often common knowledge to the experienced MEDLINE searchers.

Lets give two recent examples of what I think are redundant papers.

The first example is a letter under the heading “Clinical Observation” in Annals of Internal Medicine, entitled:

“Limitations of the MEDLINE Database in Constructing Meta-analyses”.[1]

As the authors rightly state “a thorough literature search is of utmost importance in constructing a meta-analysis. Since the PubMed interface from the National Library of Medicine is a cornerstone of many meta-analysis,  the authors (two MD’s) focused on the freely available PubMed” (with MEDLINE as its largest part).

The objective was:

“To assess the accuracy of MEDLINE’s “human” and “clinical trial” search limits, which are used by authors to focus literature searches on relevant articles.” (emphasis mine)

O.k…. Stop! I know enough. This paper should have be titled: “Limitation of Limits in MEDLINE”.

Limits are NOT DONE, when searching for a systematic review. For the simple reason that most limits (except language and dates) are MESH-terms.
It takes a while before the indexers have assigned a MESH to the papers and not all papers are correctly (or consistently) indexed. Thus, by using limits you will automatically miss recent, not yet, or not correctly indexed papers. Whereas it is your goal (or it should be) to find as many relevant papers as possible for your systematic review. And wouldn’t it be sad if you missed that one important RCT that was published just the other day?

On the other hand, one doesn’t want to drown in irrelevant papers. How can one reduce “noise” while minimizing the risk of loosing relevant papers?

  1. Use both MESH and textwords to “limit” you search, i.e. also search “trial” as textword, i.e. in title and abstract: trial[tiab]
  2. Use more synonyms and truncation (random*[tiab] OR  placebo[tiab])
  3. Don’t actively limit but use double negation. Thus to get rid of animal studies, don’t limit to humans (this is the same as combining with MeSH [mh]) but safely exclude animals as follows: NOT animals[mh] NOT humans[mh] (= exclude papers indexed with “animals” except when these papers are also indexed with “humans”).
  4. Use existing Methodological Filters (ready-made search strategies) designed to help focusing on study types. These filters are based on one or more of the above-mentioned principles (see earlier posts here and here).
    Simple Methodological Filters can be found at the PubMed Clinical Queries. For instance the narrow filter for Therapy not only searches for the Publication Type “Randomized controlled trial” (a limit), but also for randomized, controlled ànd  trial  as textwords.
    Usually broader (more sensitive) filters are used for systematic reviews. The Cochrane handbook proposes to use the following filter maximizing precision and sensitivity to identify randomized trials in PubMed (see http://www.cochrane-handbook.org/):
    (randomized controlled trial [pt] OR controlled clinical trial [pt] OR randomized [tiab] OR placebo [tiab] OR clinical trials as topic [mesh: noexp] OR randomly [tiab] OR trial [ti]) NOT (animals [mh] NOT humans [mh]).
    When few hits are obtained, one can either use a broader filter or no filter at all.

In other words, it is a beginner’s mistake to use limits when searching for a systematic review.
Besides that the authors publish what should be common knowledge (even our medical students learn it) they make many other (little) mistakes, their precise search is difficult to reproduce and far from complete. This is already addressed by Dutch colleagues in a comment [2].

The second paper is:

PubMed had a higher sensitivity than Ovid-MEDLINE in the search for systematic reviews [3], by Katchamart et al.

Again this paper focuses on the usefulness of PubMed to identify RCT’s for a systematic review, but it concentrates on the differences between PubMed and OVID in this respect. The paper starts with  explaining that PubMed:

provides access to bibliographic information in addition to MEDLINE, such as in-process citations (..), some OLDMEDLINE citations (….) citations that precede the date that a journal was selected for MEDLINE indexing, and some additional life science journals that submit full texts to PubMed Central and receive a qualitative review by NLM.

Given these “facts”, am I exaggerating when I am saying that the authors are pushing at an open door when their main conclusion is that PubMed retrieved more citations overall than Ovid-MEDLINE? The one (!) relevant article missed in OVID was a 2005 study published in a Japanese journal that MEDLINE started indexing in 2007. It was therefore in PubMed, but not in OVID MEDLINE.

An important aspect to keep in mind when searching OVID/MEDLINE ( I have earlier discussed here and here). But worth a paper?

Recently, after finishing an exhaustive search in OVID/MEDLINE, we noticed that we missed a RCT in PubMed, that was not yet available in OVID/MEDLINE.  I just added one sentence to the search methods:

Additionally, PubMed was searched for randomized controlled trials ahead of print, not yet included in OVID MEDLINE. 

Of course, I could have devoted a separate article to this finding. But it is so self-evident, that I don’t think it would be worth it.

The authors have expressed their findings in sensitivity (85% for Ovid-MEDLINE vs. 90% for PubMed, 5% is that ONE paper missing), precision and  number to read (comparable for OVID-MEDLINE and PubMed).

If I might venture another opinion: it looks like editors of medical and epidemiology journals quickly fall for “diagnostic parameters” on a topic that they don’t understand very well: library science.

The sensitivity/precision data found have little general value, because:

  • it concerns a single search on a single topic
  • there are few relevant papers (17- 18)
  • useful features of OVID MEDLINE that are not available in PubMed are not used. I.e. Adjacency searching could enhance the retrieval of relevant papers in OVID MEDLINE (adjacency=words searched within a specified maximal distance of each other)
  • the searches are not comparable, nor are the search field commands.

The latter is very important, if one doesn’t wish to compare apples and oranges.

Lets take a look at the first part of the search (which is in itself well structured and covers many synonyms).
First part of the search - Click to enlarge
This part of the search deals with the P: patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The authors first search for relevant MeSH (set 1-5) and then for a few textwords. The MeSH are fine. The authors have chosen to use Arthritis, rheumatoid and a few narrower terms (MeSH-tree shown at the right). The authors have taken care to use the MeSH:noexp command in PubMed to prevent the automatic explosion of narrower terms in PubMed (although this is superfluous for MesH terms having no narrow terms, like Caplan syndrome etc.).

But the fields chosen for the free text search (sets 6-9) are not comparable at all.

In OVID the mp. field is used, whereas all fields or even no fields are used in PubMed.

I am not even fond of the uncontrolled use of .mp (I rather search in title and abstract, remember we already have the proper MESH-terms), but all fields is even broader than .mp.

In general a .mp. search looks in the Title, Original Title, Abstract, Subject Heading, Name of Substance, and Registry Word fields. All fields would be .af in OVID not .mp.

Searching for rheumatism in OVID using the .mp field yields 7879 hits against 31390 hits when one searches in the .af field.

Thus 4 times as much. Extra fields searched are for instance the journal and the address field. One finds all articles in the journal Arthritis & Rheumatism for instance [line 6], or papers co-authored by someone of the dept. of rheumatoid surgery [line 9]

Worse, in PubMed the “all fields” command doesn’t prevent the automatic mapping.

In PubMed, Rheumatism[All Fields] is translated as follows:

“rheumatic diseases”[MeSH Terms] OR (“rheumatic”[All Fields] AND “diseases”[All Fields]) OR “rheumatic diseases”[All Fields] OR “rheumatism”[All Fields]

Oops, Rheumatism[All Fields] is searched as the (exploded!) MeSH rheumatic diseases. Thus rheumatic diseases (not included in the MeSH-search) plus all its narrower terms! This makes the entire first part of the PubMed search obsolete (where the authors searched for non-exploded specific terms). It explains the large difference in hits with rheumatism between PubMed and OVID/MEDLINE: 11910 vs 6945.

Not only do the authors use this .mp and [all fields] command instead of the preferred [tiab] field, they also apply this broader field to the existing (optimized) Cochrane filter, that uses [tiab]. Finally they use limits!

Well anyway, I hope that I made my point that useful comparison between strategies can only be made if optimal strategies and comparable  strategies are used. Sensitivity doesn’t mean anything here.

Coming back to my original point. I do think that some conclusions of these papers are “good to know”. As a matter of fact it should be basic knowledge for those planning an exhaustive search for a systematic review. We do not need bad studies to show this.

Perhaps an expert paper (or a series) on this topic, understandable for clinicians, would be of more value.

Or the recognition that such search papers should be designed and written by librarians with ample experience in searching for systematic reviews.

NOTE:
* = truncation=search for different word endings; [tiab] = title and abstract; [ti]=title; mh=mesh; pt=publication type

Photo credit

The image is taken from the Dragonfly-blog; here the Flickr-image Brain Vocab Sketch by labguest was adapted by adding the Pubmed logo.

References

  1. Winchester DE, & Bavry AA (2010). Limitations of the MEDLINE database in constructing meta-analyses. Annals of internal medicine, 153 (5), 347-8 PMID: 20820050
  2. Leclercq E, Kramer B, & Schats W (2011). Limitations of the MEDLINE database in constructing meta-analyses. Annals of internal medicine, 154 (5) PMID: 21357916
  3. Katchamart W, Faulkner A, Feldman B, Tomlinson G, & Bombardier C (2011). PubMed had a higher sensitivity than Ovid-MEDLINE in the search for systematic reviews. Journal of clinical epidemiology, 64 (7), 805-7 PMID: 20926257
  4. Search OVID EMBASE and Get MEDLINE for Free…. without knowing it (laikaspoetnik.wordpress.com 2010/10/19/)
  5. 10 + 1 PubMed Tips for Residents (and their Instructors) (laikaspoetnik.wordpress.com 2009/06/30)
  6. Adding Methodological filters to myncbi (laikaspoetnik.wordpress.com 2009/11/26/)
  7. Search filters 1. An Introduction (laikaspoetnik.wordpress.com 2009/01/22/)




3rd Call for Submissions for “Medical Information Matters”: Tools for Searching the Biomedical Literature

8 05 2011

It takes some doing to breathe life into Medical Information Matters” (blog carnival about medical  information).
A month ago I wrote a 2nd call for submissions post for this blog carnival. Unfortunately the next host, Martin Fenner, didn’t have time to finish a blog post and has come up with a new (interesting) variation on the theme “A Wish list for better medical information”.

Martin asks you to philosophize, blog and/or comment about “Tools for Searching the Biomedical Literature.

You can base your contribution on a recent (editable) survey of 28 different PubMed derivative tools by Zhiyong Lu (NCBI) [1].

Thus, write your thoughts on the various PubMed derivative tools mentioned here or write about your own favorite 3rd party PubMed tool (included or not).

For details, see Martin’s blog post announcing this upcoming edition. The Blog Carnival FAQs are here.

And if you don’t have time to write about this topic, you may still find the survey useful, as well as the views of others on this topic. So check out Martin’s blog Gobbledygook once in a while to see if the blog edition has been posted.

Note [1]: If you have already submitted a post to the carnival, or would like to write about another theme, we will take care that your post (if relevant)  will be included in this or the next edition. You can always submit here.

Note [2]: Would you like to host “Medical Information Matters” at your blog? Please comment here or write to: laika dot spoetnik at gmail dot com. We need hosts for June, July, August and September (submission deadline first Saturday of every month, posting on the next Tuesday)

  1. Lu Z. PubMed and beyond: a survey of web tools for searching biomedical literature. Database. 2011 Jan;2011. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/database/baq036




PubMed’s Shutdown Averted… For Now.

12 04 2011

MEDLINE is the National Library of Medicine‘s (NLM) premier bibliographic database of citations from biomedical journals. The content of MEDLINE is available via commercial, fee-for-service MEDLINE vendors, like OVID.

On June 26, 1997, Vice President Al Gore officially announced free MEDLINE access via PubMed. This was one of the consequences of  the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), a federal law that allows for the full or partial disclosure of previously unreleased information and documents controlled by the United States Government. (http://www.nih.gov/icd/od/foia/index.htm). National Library of Medicine (which is “just” one of the NIH web servers) gives access to many other databases besides PubMed/MEDLINEMeSH, UMLS, ClinicalTrials.gov, MedlinePlus, TOXNET.

I may complain about PubMed once in a while and I may criticize some of its new features, but I cannot imagine a working  life without PubMed. Probably this is even more true for biomedical scientist and physicians who have only access to freely available PubMed and not to OVID MEDLINE, EMBASE and Web of Science, like I do. PubMed and many other NLM databases have become an indispensable source of Medical Information.

We are so used to these free sources, that we take them for granted. Who would imagine that PubMed -or any other great free NLM/NIH database would cease to exists? Still, shutdown of these databases was imminent last weekend. Remarkably it largely went unnoticed, especially for people outside the U.S.

Did you know that there was a great chance of PubMed being killed this weekend?

I happened to get the news via my Twitter stream. I joined in around Friday midnight -Dutch time, 3-4 days ago.

Here are some selected tweets. Have a look. See and feel the panic:

As somebody far from the epicenter  it is hard for me to unravel the logic (?) behind the shutdown threat.

I understand that the near-breakshutdown is the result of the disagreement between the democrats and republicans on the ways to cut the federal costs. By refusing to pass a bill allowing the federal government to be funded, the Republican dominated House of Representatives was forcing a showdown with the White House and Barack Obama. The arrows of the Republicans were mainly directed at Planned Parenthood, the health organisation that Republicans portray as primarily focused on performing abortions, using American taxpayer dollars to do it. However, Planned Parenthood provides an array of services, from screenings for cancer to testing for sexually transmitted diseases (see Huffington post).

Well the tweet of Sarah Palin illustrates the view of the Tea Party (in typical Palin style).

For now, the threat has been averted. The Republicans forced the Democrats to agree to $39bn (£23bn) in spending cuts in this year’s budget to September, $6bn more than the Democrats were prepared to accept earlier this week. In return, the Republicans dropped a demand to cut funding for Planned Parenthood (Guardian). But no one knows whether the aversion is definitive.

This post isn’t meant to dive deep into the US political debate. It is just meant to reflect on the possibility that one of those federal databases, on which we rely, is wiped away overnight, thereby seriously affecting our usual workflows.

Some consequences when PubMed (and MEDLINE?)  would disappear:

  • Many Doctors can no longer search efficiently for medical information (only brows medical journals,  “Google” or look up outdated info).
  • The same is true for many scientists. Look at FlutesUD remarks about the references for her thesis.
  • The disappearance of Pubmed would especially affect rural areas and third world countries.
  • EBM would become difficult to practice:
    • The comprehensive search of PubMed, obligatory for systematic reviews, has to be skipped.
    • It would become almost impossible to do a critical appraised topic (i.e. interns are often used to search/have only access to PubMed)
    • CENTRAL (the largest database of controlled trials) can no longer retrieve its records from PubMed.
  • Librarians can delete many tutorials, e-learning materials and -even- classes.
  • Perhaps many librarians can even say goodbye to their jobs?
  • MYNCBI Saved searches and alerts are gone.
  • MYNCBI Saved papers (collections) are no more.
  • 3rd party Pubmed tools (Novoseek, GoPubMed, HubMed) would also cease to exist.
  • Commercially available MEDLINE sources will be affected as well.
  • By the way clinical.trials.gov, TOXNET etc would also stop. Another hit for librarians, doctors and patients.

For many, disappearance of PubMed is a relative “minor” event compared to the shutdown of other services like the NASA, or healtcare institutions. The near-disappearance of PubMed made me realize how fragile this excellent service is on which we -librarians, physicians, medical students and scientists- rely. On the other hand, it also made me realize how thankful we should be that such a database is available to us for free (yes, even for people outside the US).

Note: (Per 2011-04-14)

I have changed the title from “PubMed’s Sudden Death averted” to “PubMed’s Shutdown averted”, because Death is permanent and it was unknown if the shutdown, if any, would be permanent.

I have also changed some words in the text (blue), thus changed disappearance to “shutdown” for the same reasons as mentioned above.

On the other hand I’ve added some tweets which clearly indicate that the shutdown was not “nothing to worry about”.

The tweets mentioned are not from official resources. And this is what this post is partly about. The panic that results if there is a lack of reliable information. Other main points: (2) the importance of PubMed for biomedical information and (3) that PubMed’s permanent (free) existence is not granted.

Nikki D at Eagledawg describes the event (lack of info and panic) very clearly in her post: Pubmed. Keep Calm and Carry On?

More Info:





Search OVID EMBASE and Get MEDLINE for Free…. without knowing it

19 10 2010

I have the impression that OVIDSP listens more to librarians than the NLM, who considers the end users of databases like PubMed more important, mainly because there are more of them. On the other hand NLM communicates PubMed’s changes better (NLM Technical Bulletin) and has easier to find tutorials & FAQs, namely at the PubMed homepage.

I gather that the new changes to the OVIDSP interface are the reason why two older OVID posts are the recent number 2 and 3 hits on my blog. My guess is that people are looking for some specific information on OVID’s interface changes that they can’t easily access otherwise.

But this post won’t address the technical changes. I will write about this later.

I just want to mention a few changes to the OVIDSP databases MEDLINE and EMBASE, some of them temporary, that could have been easily missed.

[1] First, somewhere in August, OVID MEDLINE contained only indexed PubMed articles. I know that OVID MEDLINE misses some papers PubMed already has -namely the “as supplied by publisher” subset-, but this time the difference was dramatic: “in data review” and “in process” papers weren’t found as well. I almost panicked, because if I missed that much in OVID MEDLINE, I would have to search PubMed as well, and adapt the search strategy…. and, since I already lost hours because of OVID’s extreme slowness at that time, I wasn’t looking forward to this.

According to an OVID-representative this change was not new, but was already there since (many) months. Had I been blind? I checked the printed search results of a search I performed in June. It was clear that the newer update found less records, meaning that some records were missed in the current (August) update. Furthermore the old Reference Manager database contained non-indexed records. So no problems then.

But to make a long story short. Don’t worry: this change disappeared as quickly as it came.
I would have doubted my own eyes, if my colleague hadn’t seen it too.

If you have done a MEDLINE OVID search in the second half of August you might like to check the results.

[2] Simultaneously there was another change. A change that is still there.

Did you know that OVID EMBASE contains MEDLINE records as well? I knew that you could search EMBASE.com for MEDLINE and EMBASE records using the “highly praised EMTREE“, but not that OVID EMBASE recently added these records too.

They are automatic found by the text-word searches and by the EMTREE already includes all of MeSH.

Should I be happy that I get these records for free?

No, I am not.

I always start with a MEDLINE search, which is optimized for MEDLINE (with regard to the MeSH).

Since indexing by  EMTREE is deep, I usually have (much) more noise (irrelevant hits) in EMBASE.

I do not want to have an extra number of MEDLINE-records in an uncontrolled way.

I can imagine though, that it would be worthwhile in case of a quick search in EMBASE alone: that could save time.
In my case, doing extensive searches for systematic reviews I want to be in control. I also want to show the number of articles from MEDLINE and the number of extra hits from EMBASE.

(Later I realized that a figure shown by the OVID representative wasn’t fair: they showed the hits obtained when searching EMBASE, MEDLINE and other databases in Venn diagrams: MEDLINE offered little extra beyond EMBASE, which is self-evident, considering that EMBASE includes almost all MEDLINE records.- But I only learned this later.)

It is no problem if you want to include these MEDLINE records, but it is easy to exclude them.

You can limit for MEDLINE or EMBASE records.

Suppose your last search set is 26.

Click Limits > Additional Limits > EMBASE (or MEDLINE)

Alternatively type: limit 26 to embase (resp limit 26 to medline) Added together they make 100%

If only they would have told us….


3. EMBASE OVID now also adds conference abstracts.

A good thing if you do an exhaustive search and want to include unpublished material as well (50% of the conference abstracts don’t get published).

You can still exclude them if you like  (see publication types to the right)

Here is what is written at EMBASE.com

Embase now contains almost 800 conferences and more than 260,000 conference abstracts, primarily from journals and journal supplements published in 2009 and 2010. Currently, conference abstracts are being added to Embase at the rate of 1,000 records per working day, each indexed with Emtree.
Conference information is not available from PubMed, and is significantly greater than BIOSIS conference coverage. (…)

4. And did you know that OVID has eliminated StopWords from MEDLINE and EMBASE? Since  a few years you can now search for words or phrases like is there hope.tw. Which is a very good thing, because it broadens the possibility to search for certain word strings. However, it isn’t generally known.

OVID changed it after complaints by many, including me and a few Cochrane colleagues. I thought I had written a post on it before, but I apparently I haven’t ;).

Credits

Thanks to Joost Daams who always has the latest news on OVID.

Related Articles





Problems with Disappearing Set Numbers in PubMed’s Clinical Queries

18 10 2010

In some upcoming posts I will address various problems related to the changing interfaces of bibliographic databases.

We, librarians and end users, are overwhelmed by a flood of so-called upgrades, which often fail to bring the improvements that were promised….. or which go hand-in-hand with temporary glitches.

Christina of Christina’s Lis Rant even made rundown of the new interfaces of last summer. Although she didn’t include OVID MEDLINE/EMBASE, the Cochrane Library and Reference manager in her list, the total number of changed interfaces reached 22 !

As a matter of fact, the Cochrane Library was suffering some outages yesterday, to repair some bugs. So I will postpone my coverage of the Cochrane bugs a little.

And OVID send out a notice last week: This week Ovid will be deploying a software release of the OvidSPplatform that will add new functionality and address improvements to some existing functionality.”

In this post I will confine myself to the PubMed Clinical Queries. According to Christina PubMed changes “were a bit ago”, but PubMed continuously tweaks  its interface, often without paying much attention to its effects.

Back in July, I already covered that the redesign of the PubMed Clinical Queries was no improvement for people who wanted to do more than a quick and dirty search.

It was no longer possible to enter a set number in the Clinical Queries search bar. Thus it wasn’t possible to set up a search in PubMed first and to then enter the final set number in the Clinical Queries. This bug was repaired promptly.

From then on, the set number could be entered again in the clinical queries.

However, one bug was replaced by another: next, search numbers were disappearing from the search history.

I will use the example I used before: I want to know if spironolactone reduces hirsutism in women with PCOS, and if it works better than cyproterone acetate.

Since little is published about this topic,  I only search for  hirsutism and spironolactone. These terms  map correctly with  MeSH terms. In the MeSH database I also see (under “see also”) that spironolactone belongs to the aldosterone antagonists, so I broaden spironolactone (#2) with “Aldosterone antagonists”[pharmacological Action] using “OR” (set #7). My last set (#8) consists of #1 (hirsutism) AND #7 (#2 OR #6)

Next I go to the Clinical Queries in the Advanced Search and enter #8. (now possible again).

I change the Therapy Filter from “broad”  to “narrow”, because the broad filter gives too much noise.

In the clinical queries you see only the first five results.

Apparently even the clinical queries are now designed to just take a quick look at the most recent results, but of course, that is NOT what we are trying to achieve when we search for (the best) evidence.

To see all results for the narrow therapy filter I have to go back to the Clinical Queries again and click on see all (27) [5]

A bit of a long way about. But it gets longer…


The 27 hits, that result from combining the Narrow therapy filter with my search #8 appears. This is set #9.
Note it is a lower number than set #11 (search + systematic review filter).

Meanwhile set #9 has disappeared from my history.

This is a nuisance if I want to use this set further or if I want to give an overview of my search, i.e. for a presentation.

There are several tricks by which this flaw can be overcome. But they are all cumbersome.

1. Just add set number (#11 in this case, which is the last search (#8) + 3 more) to the search history (you have to remember the search set number though).

This is the set number remembered by the system. As you see in the history, you “miss” certain sets. #3 to #5 are for instance are searches you performed in the MeSH-database, which show up in the History of the MeSH database, but not in PubMed’s history.

The Clinical query set number is still there, but it doesn’t show either. Apparently the 3 clinical query-subsets yield a separate set number, whether the search is truly performed or not. In this case  #11 for (#8) AND systematic[sb], #9 for (#8) AND (Therapy/Narrow[filter]). And #10 for (#8) AND the medical genetics filter.

In this way you have all results in your history. It isn’t immediately clear, however, what these sets represent.

2. Use the commands rather than going to the clinical queries.

Thus type in the search bar: #8 AND systematic[sb]

And then: #8 AND (Therapy/Narrow[filter])

It is easiest to keep all filters in Word/Notepad and copy/paste each time you need the filter

3. Add clinical queries as filters to your personal NCBI account so that the filters show up each time you do a search in PubMed. This post describes how to do it.

Anyway these remain just tricks to try to make something right that is wrong.

Furthermore it makes it more difficult to explain the usefulness of the clinical queries to doctors and medical students. Explaining option 3 takes too long in a short course, option 1 seems illogical and 2 is hard to remember.

Thus we want to keep the set numbers in the history, at least.

A while ago Dieuwke Brand notified the NLM of this problem.

Only recently she received an answer saying that:

we are aware of the continuing problem.  The problem remains on our programmers’ list of items to investigate.  Unfortunately, because this problem appears to be limited to very few users, it has been listed as a low priority.

Only after a second Dutch medical librarian confirmed the problem to the NLM, saying it not only affects one or two librarians, but all the students we teach (~1000-2000 students/university/yearly), they realized that it was a more widespread problem than Dieuwke Brand’s personal problem. Now the problem has a higher priority.

Where is the time that a problem was taken for what it was? As another librarian sighed: Apparently something is only a problem if many people complain about it.

Now I know this (I regarded Dieuwke as a delegate of all Dutch Clinical Librarians), I realize that I have to “complain” myself, each time I and/or my colleagues encounter a problem.

Related Articles





Medical Information Matters 2.8 is up!

15 10 2010

The new edition of Medical Information Matters (formerly Medlibs round) is up at Danielhooker.com.

The main theme is “Programs in libraries or medical education”.
Besides two posts from this blog (A Filter for Finding Animal Studies in PubMed” and more on the topic: An Educator by Chance) the following topics are included: a new MeSH (inclusion under mild librarian pressure), PubMed in your pocket, embedding Google Gadgets in normal webpages and experiences with introducing social bookmarking to medical students.
If you find this description to cryptic (and I bet you do), then I invite you to read the entire post here. I found it a very pleasant read.

Since we are already midway October, I would like to invite you to start submitting here (blog carnival submission form).

Our next host is Dean Giustini of the The Search Principle blog. The deadline is in about 3 weeks ( November 6th).

Related Articles





An Educator by Chance

13 10 2010

The topic of the oncoming edition of the blog carnivalMedical Information Matters“, hosted by Daniel Hooker, is close to my heart.

Daniel at his call for submissions post:

I’d love to see posts on new things you’re trying out this year: new projects, teaching sessions, innovative services. Maybe it’s something tried and true that you’d like to reflect on. And this goes for anyone starting out fresh this term, not just librarians!

When I started as a clinical librarian 5 years ago, I mainly did search requests. Soon I also gave workshops as part of evidence based practice courses.

Our library gave the normal library courses PubMed, Reference Manager etc. We did little extra for medical students. There was a library introduction at the beginning and a PubMed training at the end of the curriculum.

Thus, when the interns had to do a CAT (Critically Appraised Topic), they had to start from SCRATCH 😉 : learn the PICO, domains, study types, searching the various databases.  After I gave  a dozen or so 1-hour long introductions to consecutive interns, repeating the same things over and over, I realized this was an ineffective use of time. So I organized a monthly CAT-introduction with a computer workshop. After this introduction I helped interns with their specific CAT, if necessary.

This course is appreciated very much and  interns usually sigh: “why didn’t we learn this before?! If we had known this…”, etcetera.

Thus we, librarians, were very enthusiastic when we got more time in the newly organized curriculum.

We made e-learning modules for the first year, two for the second year, a Pubmed-tutorial, and a computer workshop (150 min!). In the 4th year we grade the CATs.

The e-learning modules costed me tons of time. If you read the post “How to become a big e-learning nerd by mistake” at Finite Attention Span you understand why.

We used a system that was designed for exams. On my request the educational department embed the system in a website, so students could go back and forth. Lacking any good books on the topic, students should also be able to reread the text and print whatever they liked.

I was told that variation was important. Thus I used each and every of the 10 available question types. Drop down menus, clickable menus, making right pairs of terms etc. Ooh and I loved the one I used for PICO’s, where you could drag words in a sentence to the P, I, C or O. Wonderful.

Another e-learning module consisted largely of Adobe Captivate movies. As  described in the above mentioned post:

Recognise that you are on a learning curve. First of all, it is vital that your software does not always remind you to save individual files before closing the program. It is especially helpful if you can demonstrate this three times inside a week, so that you end up losing the equivalent of about two days’ work: this will provide you with a learning experience that is pretty much optimised.

Swear. Vigorously.

Become a virtuoso of the panic-save, performing Ctrl+S reflexively in your sleep, every three minutes (…)

Correcting the callouts and highlight boxes and animation timings so they don’t look like they were put together by committee is complicated. Also, writing really clear, unambiguous copy takes time.

It sounds familiar. It also regularly happened to me that I started with the wrong resolution. Then I heard afterwards: “Sorry, we can only use 800×600.”

But workshops are also time-consuming. Largely because the entire librarian staff is needed to run 30 workshops within a month (we have 350 students per year). Of course it didn’t end with those workshops. I had to make the lesson plan materials, had to instruct the tutors, make the time tables, the attendance lists and then put the data into an excel sheet again. I love it!

The knowledge is tested by exams. This year I had to make the questions myself -and score them too (luckily with help of one or two colleagues). Another time buster. The CATs had to be scored as well.

But it is worth all the pain and effort, isn’t it?

Students are sooo glad they learned all about EBM, CATS, scientific literature and searching…

Well, duh, not really.

Some things I learned in the meantime

  1. Medical students don’t give a da do not care much about searching and information literacy.
  2. Medical students don’t choose that study for nothing. They want to become doctors, not librarians.
  3. At the time we give the courses, the students not really need it. Unlike the interns, they do not need to present a CAT, shortly.
  4. Most of our work is undone by the influence of peers or tutors that learn the students all kind of “tricks” that aren’t.
  5. It is hard to make good exams. If the reasoning isn’t watertight, students will find it. And protest against it.
  6. …. Because even more important than becoming a doctor is their desire to pass the exams
  7. If the e-learning isn’t compulsory, it won’t be done.
  8. You can’t  test information literacy by multiple choice questions. It is “soft” knowledge, more a kind of approach or reasoning. Similarly PICO’s are seldom 100% wrong or right. The value of PICO-workshops lies in the discussions.
  9. The students just started their study. They’re mostly teens. These kids will have a completely other attitude after 4 years (no longer yelling, joking, mailing, Facebook-ing, or at least they are likely to stop after you ask).
  10. Education is something I did by chance. I just do it “in addition to my normal work”, i.e. in the same time.
  11. Even more important, I’m a beginner and have had no specific training. So I have to learn it the hard way.

Let me give some examples.

This year I wanted to update one of my modules. I had to, because practically all interfaces have changed the last two years (Think about PubMed for instance).

I made an appointment with the education department, because they had helped me enormously before.

Firstly I noticed that my name had been replaced by those of 3 people who hadn’t done anything (at least with regard to this particular e-learning course). Perhaps not so relevant here. But the first red flag…

The module was moved to another system. It looked much nicer, but apparently only allowed a few of those 10 types of questions. The drag and drop questions, I was so fond of, were replaced by irritating drop down menus. With the questions I made, it didn’t make sense.

The movies couldn’t be plaid fast forward, back or be stopped.

And the girl who I spoke to, a medical student herself, couldn’t disguise her dislike of the movies. First she didn’t like the call-outs and highlight boxes, she rather liked a voice (me speaking, deleting the laborious call-outs ?!). Then she said the videos were endless and it was nicer when the students could try it themselves (which was in fact the assignment). She ignored my suggestion that Adobe is suitable for virtual online training.

Then someone next to her said: Do you know “Snag-it”, you can make movies with that too!?

Do I know Snag-it? Yes I do. I even bought it for my home computer. But Snag-it is nowhere near Adobe Captivate, at least regarding call-outs and assembly. I almost mentioned Camtasia, which is from the same company as Snag-it, but more suitable for this job.

Then the girl said the movies were only meant to show “where to press the buttons”, which I repeatedly denied: those movies were meant to highlight the value of the various sources. She also suggested that I should do some usability testing, not on my colleagues, but on the students.

Funny how insights can change over times. The one who helped me considered it one of the best tutorials.

While talking to her, it stroke me that the movies were taking very long and I wondered whether each single call-out saying “press this” was functional. Perhaps she was right in a way. Perhaps some movies should be changed into plain screenshots (which I had tried to avoid, because they were so annoying Powerpoint like). If my aim wasn’t that students learned which button to press, why show it all the time?? (perhaps because Adobe shows every mouse click, it is so easy to keep it in..)

It is a long way to develop something that is educative, effective and not boring….

But little by little we can make things better.

Last year one of the coordinators proposed not to take an exam the first year but give an assignment. The students had to search for an original study on a topic in PubMed (2nd semester) and write a summary about it (3rd semester). The PubMed tutorial became compulsory, but the two Q & A sessions (with computers) were voluntary. Half of the students came to those sessions. And the atmosphere was very good. Most students really wanted to find a good study (you could only claim an article once). Some fished whether the answers were worth the full 4 points and what they had to do to get it. The quality of the searches and the general approach were quite good.

In good spirits I will start with updating the other modules. The first should be finished in a few days. That is… if they didn’t move this module to the next semester, as the catalog indicates.

That would be a shame, because then I have to change all the cardiology examples into pulmonology examples.

Gosh!…. No!!

Credits

The title is inspired by the  post “How to become a big e-learning nerd by mistake”.
Thanks to Annemarie Cunningham (@amcunningham on Twitter) for alerting me to it.

Related Articles





A Filter for Finding “All Studies on Animal Experimentation in PubMed”

29 09 2010

ResearchBlogging.orgFor  an introduction to search filters you can first read this post.

Most people searching PubMed try to get rid of publications about animals. But basic scientists and lab animal technicians just want to find those animal studies.

PubMed has built-in filters for that: the limits. There is a limit  for “humans” and a limit for “animals”. But that is not good enough to find each and every article about humans, respectively animals. The limits are MeSH, Medical Subject Headings or index-terms and these are per definition not added to new articles, that haven’t been indexed yet. To name the main disadvantage…
Thus to find all papers one should at least search for other relevant MeSH and textwords (words in title and abstract) too.

A recent paper published in Laboratory Animals describes a filter for finding “all studies on animal experimentation in PubMed“, to facilitate “writing a systematic review (SR) of animal research” .

As the authors rightly emphasize, SR’s are no common practice in the field of animal research. Knowing what already has been done can prevent unnecessary duplication of animal experiments and thus unnecessary animal use. The authors have interesting ideas like registration of animal studies (similar to clinical trials registers).

In this article they describe the design of an animal filter for PubMed. The authors describe their filter as follows:

“By using our effective search filter in PubMed, all available literature concerning a specific topic can be found and read, which will help in making better evidencebased decisions and result in optimal experimental conditions for both science and animal welfare.”

Is this conclusion justified?

Design of the filter

Their filter is subjectively derived: the terms are “logically” chosen.

[1] The first part of the animal filter consists of only MeSH-terms.

You can’t use animals[mh] (mh=Mesh) as a search term, because MeSH are automatically exploded in PubMed. This means that narrower terms (lower in the tree) are also searched. If “Animals” were allowed to explode, the search would include the MeSH, “Humans”, which is at the end of one tree (primates etc, see Fig. below)

Therefore the MeSH-parts of their search consists of:

  1. animals [mh:noexp]: only articles are found that are indexed with “animals”, but not its narrower terms. Notably, this is identical to the PubMed Limit: animals).
  2. Exploded Animal-specific MeSH-terms not having humans as a narrow term, i.e. “fishes”[MeSH Terms].
  3. and non-exploded MeSH in those cases that humans occurred in the same branch. Like “primates”[MeSH Terms:noexp]
  4. In addition two other MeSH are used: “animal experimentation”[MeSH Terms] and “models, animal”[MeSH Terms]

[2] The second part of the search filter consist of terms in the title and abstract (command: [tiab]).

The terms are taken from relevant MeSH, two reports about animal experimentation in the Netherlands and in Europe, and the experience of the authors, who are experts in the field.

The authors use this string for non-indexed records (command: NOT medline[sb]). Thus this part is only meant to find records that haven’t (yet) been indexed, but in which (specific) animals are mentioned by the author in title or text. Synonyms and spelling variants have been taken into account.

Apparently the authors have chosen NOT to search for text words in indexed records only. Presumably it gives too much noise, to search for animals mentioned in non-indexed articles. However, the authors do not discuss why this was necessary.

This search string is extremely long. Partly because truncation isn’t used with the longer words: i.e. nematod*[tiab] instead of nematoda[Tiab] OR nematode[Tiab] OR nematoda[Tiab] OR nematode[Tiab] OR nematodes[Tiab]. Partly because they aim for completeness. However the usefulness of the terms as such hasn’t been verified (see below).

Search strategies can be freely accessed here.

Validation

The filter is mainly validated against the PubMed Limit “Animals”.

The authors assume that the PubMed Limits are “the most easily available and most obvious method”. However I know few librarians or authors of systematic reviews who would solely apply this so called ‘regular method’. In the past I have used exactly the same MeSH-terms (1) and the main text words (2) as included in their filter.

Considering that the filter includes the PubMed limit “Animals” [1.1] it does not come as a surprise that the sensitivity of the filter exceeds that of the PubMed limit Animals…

Still, the sensitivity (106%) is not really dramatic: 6% more records are found, the PubMed Limit “animals” is set as 100%.

Apparently records are very well indexed with the MeSH “animals”. Few true animal records are missed, because “animals” is a check tag. A check tag is a MeSH that is looked for routinely by indexers in every journal article. It is added to the record even if it isn’t the main (or major) point of an article.

Is an increased sensitivity of appr. 6% sufficient to conclude that this filter “performs much better than the current alternative in PubMed”?

No. It is not only important that MORE is found but to what degree the extra hits are relevant. Surprisingly, the authors ONLY determined SENSITIVITY, not specificity or precision.

There are many irrelevant hits, partly caused by the inclusion of animal population groups[mesh], which has some narrower terms that often not used for experimentation, i.e. endangered species.

Thus even after omission of animal population groups[mesh], the filter still gives hits like:

These are evidently NOT laboratory animal experiments and mainly caused by the inclusion invertebrates  like plankton.

Most other MeSH are not extremely useful either. Even terms as animal experimentation[mh] and models, animal[mh] are seldom assigned to experimental studies lacking animals as a MeSH.

According to the authors, the MeSH “Animals” will not retrieve studies solely indexed with the MeSH term Mice. However, the first records missed with mice[mesh] NOT animals[mh:noexp] are from 1965, when they apparently didn’t use “animals” as a check tag in addition to specific ‘animal’ MeSH.

Thus presumably the MeSH-filter can be much shorter and need only contain animal MeSH (rats[mh], mice[mh] etc) when publications older than 1965 are also required.

The types of vertebrate animals used in lab re...

Image via Wikipedia

Their text word string (2) is also extremely long.  Apart from the lack of truncation, most animal terms are not relevant for most searches. 2/3 of the experiments are done with rodents (see Fig). The other animals are often used for specific experiments (zebra-fish, Drosophila) or in another context, not related to animal experiments, such as:

swine flu, avian flu, milk production by cows, or allergy by milk-products or mites, stings by insects and bites by dogs and of course fish, birds, cattle and poultry as food, fetal calf serum in culture medium, but also vaccination with “mouse products” in humans. Thus most of the terms produce noise for most topics. An example below (found by birds[mesh] 🙂

On the other hand strains of mice and rats are missing from the search string: i.e. balb/c, wistar.

Extremely long search strings (1 page) are also annoying to use. However, the main issue is whether the extra noise matters. Because the filter is meant to find all experimental animal studies.

As Carlijn Hooijmans notices correctly, the filters are never used on their own, only in combination with topic search terms.

Hooijmans et al have therefore “validated” their filter with two searches. “Validated” between quotation marks because they have only compared the number of hits, thus the increase in sensitivity.

Their first topic is the use of probiotics in experimental pancreatitis (see appendix).

Their filter (combined with the topic search) retrieved 37 items against 33 items with the so called “regular method”: an increase in sensitivity of 21,1%.

After updating the search I got  38 vs 35 hits. Two of the 3 extra hits obtained with the broad filter are relevant and are missed with the PubMed limit for animals, because the records haven’t been indexed. They could also have been found with the text words pig*[tiab] or dog*[tiab]. Thus the filter is ok for this purpose, but unnecessary long. The MeSH-part of the filter had NO added value compared to animals[mh:noexp].

Since there are only 148 hits without the use of any filters, researchers could also use screen all hits. Alternatively there is a trick to safely exclude human studies:

NOT (humans[mh] NOT animals[mh:noexp])

With this double negation you exclude PubMed records that are indexed with humans[mh], as long as these records aren’t indexed with animals[mh:noexp] too. It is far “safer” than limiting for “animals”[mesh:noexp] only. We use a similar approach to ” exclude”  animals when we search for human studies.

This extremely simple filter yields 48 hits, finding all hits found with the large animal filter (plus 10 irrelevant hits).

Such a simple filter can easily be used for searches with relatively few hits, but gives too many irrelevant hits in case of  a high yield.

The second topic is food restriction. 9280 Records were obtained with the Limit: “Animals”, whereas this strategy combined with the complete filter retrieved 9650 items. The sensitivity in this search strategy was therefore 104%. 4% extra hits were obtained.

The MeSH-search added little to the search. Only 21 extra hits. The relevant hits were (again) only from before 1965.

The text-word part of the search finds relevant new articles, although there are quite some  irrelevant findings too, i.e. dieting and obtaining proteins from chicken.

4% isn’t a lot extra, but the aim of the researchers is too find all there is.

However, it is the question whether researchers want to find every single experiment or observation done in the animal kingdom. If I were to plan an experiment on whether food restriction lowers the risk for prostate cancer in a transgenic mice, need I know what the effects are of food restriction on Drosophila, nematodes, salmon or even chicken on whatever outcome? Would I like to screen 10,000 hits?

Probably most researchers would like separate filters for rodents and other laboratory animals (primates, dogs) and for work on Drosophila or fish. In some fields there might also be a need to filter clinical trials and reviews out.

Furthermore, it is not only important to have a good filter but also a good search.

The topic searches in the current paper are not ideal: they contain overlapping terms (food restriction is also found by food and restriction) and misses important MeSH (Food deprivation, fasting and the broader term of caloric restriction “energy intake” are assigned more often to records about food deprivation than caloric restriction).

Their search:

(“food restriction”[tiab] OR (“food”[tiab] AND “restriction”[tiab]) OR “feed restriction”[tiab] OR (“feed”[tiab] AND “restriction”[tiab]) OR “restricted feeding”[tiab] OR (“feeding”[tiab] AND “restricted”[tiab]) OR “energy restriction”[tiab] OR (“energy”[tiab] AND “restriction”[tiab]) OR “dietary restriction”[tiab] OR (dietary”[tiab] AND “restriction”[tiab]) OR “caloric restriction”[MeSH Terms] OR (“caloric”[tiab] AND “restriction”[tiab]) OR “caloric restriction”[tiab])
might for instance be changed to:

Energy Intake[mh] OR Food deprivation[mh] OR Fasting[mh] OR food restrict*[tiab] OR feed restrict*[tiab] OR restricted feed*[tiab] OR energy restrict*[tiab] OR dietary restrict*[tiab] OR  caloric restrict*[tiab] OR calorie restrict*[tiab] OR diet restrict*[tiab]

You do not expect such incomplete strategies from people who repeatedly stress that: most scientists do not know how to use PubMed effectively” and that “many researchers do not use ‘Medical Subject Headings’ (MeSH terms), even though they work with PubMed every day”…..

Combining this modified search with their animal filter yields 21920 hits instead of 10335 as found with their “food deprivation” search and their animal filter. A sensitivity of 212%!!! Now we are talking! 😉 (And yes there are many new relevant hits found)

Summary

The paper describes the performance of a subjective search filter to find all experimental studies performed with laboratory animals. The authors have merely “validated”  this filter against the Pubmed Limits: animals. In addition, they only determined sensitivity:  on average 7% more hits were obtained with the new animal filter than with the PubMed limit alone.

The authors have not determined the specificity or precision of the filter, not even for the 2 topics where they have applied the filter. A quick look at the results shows that the MeSH-terms other than the PubMed limit “animals” contributed little to the enhanced sensitivity. The text word part of the filter yields more relevant hits. Still -depending on the topic- there are many irrelevant records found, because  it is difficult to separate animals as food, allergens etc from laboratory animals used in experiments and the filter is developed to find every single animal in the animal kingdom, including poultry, fish, nematodes, flies, endangered species and plankton. Another (hardly to avoid) “contamination” comes from in vitro experiments with animal cells, animal products used in clinical trials and narrative reviews.

In practice, only parts of the search filter seem useful for most systematic reviews, and especially if these reviews are not meant to give an overview of all findings in the universe, but are needed to check if a similar experiment hasn’t already be done. It seems impractical if researchers have to make a systematic review, checking, summarizing and appraising  10,000 records each time they start a new experiment.

Perhaps I’m somewhat too critical, but the cheering and triumphant tone of the paper in combination with a too simple design and without proper testing of the filter asked for a critical response.

Credits

Thanks to Gerben ter Riet for alerting me to the paper. He also gave the tip that the paper can be obtained here for free.

References

  1. Hooijmans CR, Tillema A, Leenaars M, & Ritskes-Hoitinga M (2010). Enhancing search efficiency by means of a search filter for finding all studies on animal experimentation in PubMed. Laboratory animals, 44 (3), 170-5 PMID: 20551243

———————-