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)
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 How quickly do systematic reviews go out of date?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