Refining Boolean queries to identify relevant studies for systematic review updates

Author:

Alharbi Amal1,Stevenson Mark1

Affiliation:

1. Computer Science Department, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom

Abstract

Abstract Objective Systematic reviews are important in health care but are expensive to produce and maintain. The authors explore the use of automated transformations of Boolean queries to improve the identification of relevant studies for updates to systematic reviews. Materials and Methods A set of query transformations, including operator substitution, query expansion, and query reduction, were used to iteratively modify the Boolean query used for the original systematic review. The most effective transformation at each stage is identified using information about the studies included and excluded from the original review. A dataset consisting of 22 systematic reviews was used for evaluation. Updated queries were evaluated using the included and excluded studies from the updated version of the review. Recall and precision were used as evaluation measures. Results The updated queries were more effective than the ones used for the original review, in terms of both precision and recall. The overall number of documents retrieved was reduced by more than half, while the number of relevant documents found increased by 10.3%. Conclusions Identification of relevant studies for updates to systematic reviews can be carried out more effectively by using information about the included and excluded studies from the original review to produce improved Boolean queries. These updated queries reduce the overall number of documents retrieved while also increasing the number of relevant documents identified, thereby representing a considerable reduction in effort required by systematic reviewers.

Funder

Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia

Cultural Bureau in London

Publisher

Oxford University Press (OUP)

Subject

Health Informatics

Reference26 articles.

1. A prospective evaluation of an automated classification system to support evidence-based medicine and systematic review;Cohen;AMIA Ann Symp Proc

2. Boolean versus ranked querying for biomedical systematic reviews;Karimi;BMC Med Inform Decis Mak,2010

3. Systematic reviews need systematic searchers;McGowan;J Med Libr Assoc,2005

4. Seventy-five trials and eleven systematic reviews a day: how will we ever keep up?;Bastian;PLoS Med,2010

5. How quickly do systematic reviews go out of date? a survival analysis;Shojania;Ann Intern Med,2007

Cited by 12 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

1. Automation of systematic reviews of biomedical literature: a scoping review of studies indexed in PubMed;Systematic Reviews;2024-07-08

2. Effects of screen time on the social well-being of adolescents;Forensic Research & Criminology International Journal;2024-06-07

3. Criteria and methods in nuclear power plants siting: a systematic literature review;Cogent Social Sciences;2024-06-03

4. Automation of systematic reviews of biomedical literature: a systematic review of studies indexed in PubMed;2023-10-10

5. Smooth Operators for Effective Systematic Review Queries;Proceedings of the 46th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval;2023-07-18

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3