Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T17:41:54.258Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Presenting search strategies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 April 2011

Karin van der Hoorn
Affiliation:
Josepha Plevier
Affiliation:
Jan W. Schoones
Affiliation:
Jessica M. Langenhoff
Affiliation:
Leids Universitair Medisch Centrum, Walaeus Library, Postbus 9600, 2300 RC Leiden, The Netherlands Email: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In their article, Niederstadt and Droste (1) suggest a clear representation of all search strategies for each database to be important. We agree but would like to suggest an even more robust representation of search strategies: a search strategy should be displayed as a string, rather than as a table. The advantage of this method of display is three-fold: it is clearer, it is less ambiguous, and it is easier to reproduce, adapt and apply in a database. Niederstadt and Droste also suggest to indicate the number of results per query. We deem this to be irrelevant. An indication of the number of results for each aspect would be more useful. Likewise, we consider the inclusion of a field code behind each term to be important as well. This will prevent ambiguity regarding the interpretation of the search by the search engine.

Type
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

To the Editor:

In their article, Niederstadt and Droste (Reference Niederstadt and Droste1) suggest a clear representation of all search strategies for each database to be important. We agree but would like to suggest an even more robust representation of search strategies: a search strategy should be displayed as a string, rather than as a table. The advantage of this method of display is three-fold: it is clearer, it is less ambiguous, and it is easier to reproduce, adapt and apply in a database. Niederstadt and Droste also suggest to indicate the number of results per query. We deem this to be irrelevant. An indication of the number of results for each aspect would be more useful. Likewise, we consider the inclusion of a field code behind each term to be important as well. This will prevent ambiguity regarding the interpretation of the search by the search engine.

Finally, we would suggest the application of color coding aspects of a search for better and easier understanding of a complex search strategy. [Editor's comment: Instead of color coding Intervention in red and Outcomes in blue text, the coding used here in black and white is bold for Intervention and italics for Outcomes.]

As an example of the above, we present a specific search strategy as applied in PubMed:

PICO:

P: patient with postpartum bleeding

I: uterine compression suture

C: -

O: complications

Patient and Intervention and Complications

(“Postpartum Hemorrhage”[Mesh] OR “Postpartum hemorrhage”[All fields] OR “Post partum hemorrhage”[All fields] OR “uterine hemorrhage”[All fields] OR “peripartum bleeding”[All fields] OR “postpartum bleeding”[All fields] OR “post partum bleeding”[All fields]) AND (“Obstetric Surgical Procedures”[Mesh:NoExp] OR “Suture Techniques”[Mesh] OR “B-lynch”[All Fields] OR “B lynch”[tiab] OR “Hemostasis, Surgical”[Mesh] OR “surgical hemostasis”[All Fields] OR “Hayman”[tiab] OR “Pereira”[tiab] OR “Cho”[tiab] OR “uterine compression suture”[All fields] OR “uterine compression sutures”[All fields]) AND (“Postoperative Complications”[Mesh] OR “complications”[Subheading] OR “complications”[all fields] OR “complication”[All fields] OR “adverse effects”[Subheading] OR “adverse effects”[All fields] OR “adverse effect”[All fields] OR “Time”[Mesh] OR “long term”[All fields] OR “long-term”[All fields] OR “treatment outcome”[Mesh] OR “Outcome”[All fields] OR “Follow-Up studies”[Mesh] OR “follow up”[All fields] OR “follow-up”[All fields])

185 references on Nov 24th 2010

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The authors do not report any potential conflicts of interest.

References

REFERENCE

1. Niederstadt, C, Droste, S. Reporting and presenting information retrieval processes: the need for optimizing common practice in health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2010;26:450457.Google Scholar