Hostname: page-component-669899f699-qzcqf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-05-07T02:32:31.418Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An investigation of the adequacy of MEDLINE searches for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of the effects of mental health care

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 July 2009

C. E. Adams ,
A. Power ,
K. Frederick  and
C. Lefebvre
C. E. Adams*
Affiliation:
Departments of Psychiatry and General Adult Psychiatry, Warneford Hospital, Oxford; UK Cochrane Centre, Oxford
A. Power
Affiliation:
Departments of Psychiatry and General Adult Psychiatry, Warneford Hospital, Oxford; UK Cochrane Centre, Oxford
K. Frederick
Affiliation:
Departments of Psychiatry and General Adult Psychiatry, Warneford Hospital, Oxford; UK Cochrane Centre, Oxford
C. Lefebvre
Affiliation:
Departments of Psychiatry and General Adult Psychiatry, Warneford Hospital, Oxford; UK Cochrane Centre, Oxford
*
1Address for correspondence: Dr Clive E. Adams, University of Oxford, Department of Psychiatry, Warneford Hospital, Oxford OX3 7JX
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Synopsis

Valid reviews of the effects of mental health care depend on identifying as high a proportion as possible of relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs). To investigate the sensitivity and precision both of MEDLINE and of hand-searching for RCTs in mental health, 12 journals specializing in mental health and indexed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) for MEDLINE were searched for the years 1971, 1976, 1981, 1986 and 1991. The sensitivity of the hand-search was 94% (95% Confidence Interval (CI) 93–95%), but it had a precision of only 7% (CI 6–8%). The optimal MEDLINE search had a sensitivity of only 52% (CI 48–56%) and precision of 59% (CI 55–63%). Of the reports of RCTs identified by the hand-search, 9% (CI 7–11 %) were not included in MEDLINE at all. Authors had included methodological descriptions in 84% (CI 80–88%) of RCTs found by the hand-search but missed by the MEDLINE search. Systematic reviews of mental health care which are based solely on MEDLINE searches of the literature will miss a large proportion of the relevant RCTs, and are thus liable to random error and bias. A register of mental health RCTs is urgently required.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Psychological Medicine , Volume 24 , Issue 3 , August 1994 , pp. 741 - 748
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1994

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Adams, C. E. & Gelder, M. G. G. (1994). The case for establishing a register of randomized controlled trials of mental health care. British Journal of Psychiatry 164, 433–436.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Adams, C. E., Lefebvre, C. & Chalmers, I. (1992). Difficulty with MEDLINE searches for randomised controlled trials. Lancet 340, 915–916.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Antman, E. M., Lau, J., Kupelnick, B., Mosteller, F. & Chalmers, T. C. (1992). A comparison of results of meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and recommendations of clinical experts. Treatment for myocardial infarction. Journal of the American Medical Association 268, 240–248.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Balestrieri, M., Williams, P. & Wilkinson, G. (1988). Specialist mental health treatment in general practice: a meta-analysis. Psychological Medicine 18, 711–717.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bareta, J. C., Larson, D. B., Lyons, J. S. & Zorc, J. J. (1990). A comparison of manual and MEDLARS reviews of the literature in consultation-liaison psychiatry. American Journal of Psychiatry 147, 1040–1042.Google ScholarPubMed
Bernstein, F. (1988). The retrieval of randomized controlled trials in liver diseases from the medical literature: manual versus MEDLARS searches. Controlled Clinical Trials 9, 23–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chalmers, I., Hetherington, J., Newdick, M., Mutch, L., Grant, A., Enkin, M., Enkin, E. & Dickersin, K. (1986). The Oxford Register of Perinatal Trials: developing a register of published reports of controlled trials. Controlled Clinical Trials 7, 306–324.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chalmers, I., Enkin, M. & Keirse, M. J. N. C. (eds.) (1989). Effective Care in Pregnancy and Childbirth. Oxford University Press: Oxford.Google Scholar
Chalmers, I., Adams, M., Dickersin, K., Hetherington, J., Tarnow-Mordi, W., Meinert, C., Tonascia, S. & Chalmers, T. C. (1990). A cohort study of summary reports of controlled trials. Journal of the American Medical Association 263, 1401–1405.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chalmers, I., Dickersin, K. & Chalmers, T. C. (1992). Getting to grips with Archie Cochrane's agenda. British Medical Journal 305, 786–788.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Database (1994). Update Software, Oxford.Google Scholar
Collins, R., Peto, R., MacMahon, S., Hebert, P., Feibach, N. H., Eberlin, K. A., Goodwin, J., Qizilbash, N., Taylor, J. O. & Hennekens, C. H. (1990). Blood pressure, stroke and CHD. Part 2. Overview of randomized drug trials in the epidemiological context. Lancet 335, 827–838.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Depression Guideline Panel (1993). Depression in Primary Care: Volume 2, Treatment of Major Depression. Clinical Practice Guideline, No. 5. US Department of Health and Human Services. Public Health Service. Agency for Health Care Policy and Research. AHCPR Publication No. 93–0551: Rockville, MD.Google Scholar
Dickersin, K. & Min, Y. I. (1993). NIH clinical trials and publication bias [article]. Online Journal of Current Clinical Trials [serial online] Apr 28; 1993 (Doc. No. 50).Google ScholarPubMed
Dickersin, K., Hewitt, P., Mutch, L., Chalmers, I. & Chalmers, T. C. (1985). Comparison of MEDLINE searching with a perinatal trial database. Controlled Clinical Trials 6, 306–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dickersin, K., Min, Y. I. & Meinert, C. L. (1992). Factors influencing publication of research results: follow-up of applications submitted to two substantial review boards. Journal of the American Medical Association 267, 374–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dickersin, K., Scherer, R. & Lefebvre, C. (1994). Identification of relevant studies for systematic reviews. British Medical Journal (in the press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drug and Therapeutics Bulletin (1992). Systematic overviews of controlled trials help clarify treatment effects. 30, 25–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Easterbrook, P. J., Berlin, J. A., Gopalan, R. & Matthews, D. R. (1991). Publication bias in clinical research. Lancet 337, 867–872.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gøtzsche, P. C. & Lange, B. (1991). Comparison of search strategies for recalling double-blind trials from MEDLINE. Danish Medical Bulletin 38, 476–479.Google ScholarPubMed
Hofmans, E. A. (1990). The results of a MEDLINE search. The accessibility of research on the effectiveness of acupuncture, II. Huisarts Wet 33, 103–106.Google Scholar
House of Commons Health Committee (1992). Maternity Services. (2nd report) vol. 1. p. xlix. HMSO: London.Google Scholar
Jadad, A. R. & McQuay, H. J. (1993 a). A high-yield strategy to identify randomized controlled trials for systematic reviews. Online Journal of Current Clinical Trials [serial online], Doc. No. 33.Google ScholarPubMed
Jadad, A. R. & McQuay, H. J. (1993 b). Be systematic in your searching. British Medical Journal 307, 66.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kirpalani, H., Schmidt, B., McKibbon, K. A., Haynes, B. & Sinclair, J. (1989). Searching MEDLINE for randomised controlled trials involving care of the newborn. Paediatrics 83, 543–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kleijnen, J. & Knipschild, P. (1992). The comprehensiveness of MEDLINE and EMBASE computer searches. Pharmaceutisch Weekblad Scientific Edition 14, 316–320.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lancet (1991). Making clinical trialists register. Lancet 338, 244–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meinert, C. L. (1988). Toward prospective registration of clinical trials. Controlled Clinical Trials 9, 1–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Poynard, T. & Conn, H. O. (1985). The retrieval of randomised clinical trials in liver disease from medical literature. Controlled Clinical Trials 6, 271–279.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Scherer, R. & Dickersin, K. (1992). Publication of randomized clinical trials in vision research submitted as abstracts to national ophthalmology meetings. Controlled Clinical Trials 13, 421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schuyler, P. L., Dickersin, K., Scherer, R. & Wright, N. D. (1993). Identification of randomized clinical trials using MEDLINE.Presented at the 2nd International Congress on Peer Review,10 September, 1993.Google Scholar
Silagy, C. (1993). Developing a register of randomized controlled trials in primary care. British Medical Journal 306, 897–900.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Simes, R. J. (1986). Publication bias: the case for an international registry of clinical trials. Journal of Clinical Oncology 4, 1529–1541.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
WHO Scientific Group on Treatment of Psychiatric Disorders (1991). Evaluation of Methods for the Treatment of Mental Disorders. WHO: Geneva.Google Scholar