Effectiveness of automated tools for developing search strategies in PubMed and Embase

Constructing the PICO research question

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5195/biblios.2023.1050

Keywords:

Embase, Information retrieval, MEDLINE, PICO, PubMed, Search Strategy

Abstract

Objetive. This research verified the co-occurrence rate of results in information retrieval from bibliographic databases in the health field using automated tools for search strategy development compared to the manual search method.

Method. Through an exploratory study, a comparative analysis of quantitative aspects, similarity, relevance of results, and limitations was conducted between automated search strategy construction systems of the PubMed and Embase databases. A manual search strategy and an automated one were developed, and the results were organized for analysis. The data were analyzed through (a) co-occurrence index per search method; (b) co-occurrence index between databases; (c) co-occurrence index of the final result between databases; and (d) relevance index per search method.

Results. The study results suggest a low but significant quantitative difference between search methods. The co-occurrence of results is high when comparing results from the same bibliographic database. The similarity of results between bibliographic databases is low, and the relevance index of recovered results showed similar equivalence between databases and between the methods used. Documents retrieved in PubMed had a higher similarity index between both search methods, while in Embase, the similarity was lower. However, the co-occurrence index between databases did not exceed 2% similarity between the methods employed.

Conclusions. The low similarity index reinforces the need for using different bibliographic databases for evidence synthesis in health. The Embase automated search mechanism proved to be more effective, with a set of useful resources enabling the development of more complex search strategies, while PubMed needs improvements to deliver adequate functionalities for researchers conducting systematic reviews in Health Sciences.

Author Biographies

Wánderson Cássio Oliveira Araújo, Federal University of Ceará

Bibliotecário na Biblioteca de Ciências da Saúde (BCS/UFC) da Universidade Federal do Ceará (UFC). Aluno de doutorado e Mestre em Ciência da Informação pela Universidade Federal de Santa (UFSC). Pesquisador no Grupo de pesquisa Núcleo de Gestão da Sustentabilidade (NGS/EGC/UFSC) e no Instituto de Engenharia de Sistemas e Computadores, Tecnologia e Ciência (INESC TEC) da Universidade do Porto, Portugal.

 

Angel Freddy Godoy Viera, Federal University of Santa Catarina

Doutor em Engenharia de Produção pela Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina (UFSC). Professor no Programa de Pós-Graduação em Ciência da Informação (PGCIN) da Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina. Professor Titular do Departamento de Ciência da Informação (CIN/UFSC). Líder do Grupo de pesquisa de Recuperação de Informação e Tecnologias Avançadas (RITA/UFSC).

 

Gregório Varvakis, Federal University of Santa Catarina

Doutor em Manufacturing Engineering pela Loughborough University of Technology. Professor titular da Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina (UFSC) no Departamento de Engenharia do Conhecimento atuando no ensino da graduação e nos programas de Pós-graduação em Engenharia, Gestão e Mídia do Conhecimento e na Pós-graduação em Ciência da Informação. Líder do Grupo de pesquisa Núcleo de Gestão da Sustentabilidade (NGS/EGC/UFSC).

 

References

ARAÚJO, Wánderson Cássio Oliveira. Recuperação da informação em saúde: construção, modelos e estratégias. Convergências em Ciência da Informação, Aracaju, v. 3, n. 2, p. 100-134, jul. 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.33467/conci.v3i2.13447.

AROMATARIS, Edoardo; MUNN, Zachary (ed.). JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. Adelaide: JBI, 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.46658/JBIMES-20-01.

BELL, Robert A. et al. Lingering questions and doubts: Online information-seeking of support forum members following their medical visits. Patient Education and Counseling, v. 85, n. 3, p.525-528, Dec. 2011. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2011.01.015.

CAPES. Portal de Periódicos da CAPES: lista de bases e coleções. Lista de bases e coleções. 2023. Disponível em: https://www-periodicos-capes-gov-br.ezl.periodicos.capes.gov.br/index.php/acervo/lista-a-z-bases.html. Acesso em: 01 dez. 2023.

CLARIVATE. Bringing Generative AI to the Web of Science. 2023. Disponível em: https://clarivate.com/blog/bringing-generative-ai-to-the-web-of-science. Acesso em: 01 dez. 2023.

COCHRANE. Cochrane Library. 2023. Disponível em: https://www.cochranelibrary.com. Acesso em: 01 dez. 2023.

DIGITAL SCIENCE. Dimensions. 2023. Disponível em: https://app.dimensions.ai. Acesso em: 01 dez. 2023.

EBSCO. DynaMed. 2023. Disponível em: https://www.dynamed.com. Acesso em: 01 dez. 2023.

ELSEVIER. Embase. 2023. Disponível em: https://www.embase.com. Acesso em: 01 dez. 2023a.

ELSEVIER. Scopus AI: Trusted content. Powered by responsible AI. 2023. Disponível em: https://www.elsevier.com/products/scopus/scopus-ai. Acesso em: 01 dez. 2023b.

ERIKSEN, Mette Brandt; FRANDSEN, Tove Faber. The impact of patient, intervention, comparison, outcome (PICO) as a search strategy tool on literature search quality: a systematic review. Journal of the Medical Library Association, v. 106, n. 4, p.420-431, Oct. 2018. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2018.345.

FRANDSEN, Tove Faber et al. Using Embase as a supplement to PubMed in Cochrane reviews differed across fields. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, v. 133, p. 24-31, May 2021. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.12.022.

GANESHKUMAR, P; GOPALAKRISHNAN, S. Systematic reviews and meta-analysis: understanding the best evidence in primary healthcare. Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care, v. 2, n. 1, p. 9-14, Jan./Mar.2013. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/2249-4863.109934.

GRANT, Maria J.; BOOTH, Andrew. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal, v. 26, n. 2, p. 91-108, May 2009. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x.

HIGGINS, Julian P.T. et al. (ed.). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions versão 6.3 (Last updated: 22 August, 2023). Cochrane, 2023a. Disponível em: https://training.cochrane.org/handbook. Aceso em: 01 dez. 2023.

HIGGINS, Julian P.T. et al. Methodological Expectations of Cochrane Intervention Reviews (MECIR). London, UK: Cochrane, 2023b.

IAKOVOU, Kostas; SCHULPIS, Kleopatra. Web medical information produces anxiety in parents of infants with suspected galactosemia. Reviews on Environmental Health, v. 34, n. 2, p.219-221, June 2019. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/reveh-2018-0064.

MCGOWAN, Jessie et al. PRESS Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies: 2015 guideline statement. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, v. 75, p. 40-46, July 2016. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.01.021.

MCMULLAN, Miriam. Patients using the Internet to obtain health information: How this affects the patient–health professional relationship. Patient Education and Counseling, v. 63, n. 1-2, p.24-28, Oct. 2006. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2005.10.006.

NATIONAL LIBRARY OF MEDICINE (USA). MEDLINE: MEDLINE history. 2021. Documento revisado em fevereiro de 2021. Disponível em: https://www.nlm.nih.gov/medline/medline_history.html. Acesso em: 19 jun. 2021.

NATIONAL LIBRARY OF MEDICINE. PubMed. 2023. Disponível em: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. Acesso em: 01 dez. 2023.

PAIVA, Lilian. Apresentação Embase. São Paulo, 2020. 12 slides, color. Disponível em: https://www.aguia.usp.br/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Apresenta%C3%A7%C3%A3o-Embase-USP-Maio-2020.pdf. Acesso em: 16 dez. 2021.

PRANCKUTE, Raminta. Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: the titans of bibliographic information in today's academic world. Publications, v. 9, n. 1, p. 12, Mar. 2021. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/publications9010012.

PRITCHARD, Steve J.; WEIGHTMAN, Alison L. Medline in the UK: pioneering the past, present and future. Health Information & Libraries Journal, v. 22, p. 38-44, Sep. 2005. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-3324.2005.00586.x.

PURSSELl, Edward; MCCRAE, Niall. How to Perform a Systematic Literature Review: a guide for healthcare researchers, practitioners and students. Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 2020.

RICHARDSON, W. Scott, et al. The well-built clinical question: a key to evidence-based decisions. ACP Journal Club, Philadelphia, v. 123, n. 3, p.A12-A13, Nov./Dec. 1995. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7326/ACPJC-1995-123-3-A12.

SALVADOR-OLIVÁN, José Antonio; MARCO-CUENCA, Gonzalo; ARQUERO-AVILÉS, Rosario. Errors in search strategies used in systematic reviews and their effects on information retrieval. Journal of the Medical Library Association, v. 107, n. 2, p. 210-221, Apr. 2019. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2019.567.

SIDDAWAY, Andy P.; WOOD, Alex M.; HEDGES, Larry V. How to do a Systematic Review: A Best Practice Guide for Conducting and Reporting Narrative Reviews, Meta-Analyses, and Meta-Syntheses. Annual Review of Psychology, v. 70, n. 1, p.747-770, Jan. 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-102803.

SOUALMIA, Lina F. et al. Strategies for Health Information Retrieval. In: HASMAN, Arie etl al (ed.). Ubiquity: Technologies for Better Health in Aging Societies. Amsterdam: IOS Press, 2006. p. 595-600.

STEIL, Andrea Valéria et al. Reporting characteristics of systematic reviews in Psychology: a scoping review. Journal of Health Psychology, p. 1-18, Feb. 2022. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/13591053221074592.

THE JOANNA BRIGGS INSTITUTE. Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewers’ Manual 2015 edition: Methodology for JBI scoping reviews. Adelaide, Australia: The Joanna Briggs Institute, 2015.

WOLTERS KLUWER. Ovid. 2023. Disponível em: https://ovidsp.ovid.com. Acesso em: 01 dez. 2023a.

WOLTERS KLUWER. UpToDate. 2023. Disponível em: https://www.uptodate.com/login. Acesso em: 01 dez. 2023b.

ZB MED. LIVIVO: the search portal for life sciences. 2023. Disponível em: https://www.livivo.de. Acesso em: 01 dez. 2023.

Downloads

Published

2024-03-04

How to Cite

Araújo, W. C. O., Viera, A. F. G., & Varvakis, G. (2024). Effectiveness of automated tools for developing search strategies in PubMed and Embase: Constructing the PICO research question. Biblios Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, (86), 114–135. https://doi.org/10.5195/biblios.2023.1050

Issue

No. 86 (2023)

Section

Original

License

Copyright (c) 2024 Wánderson Cássio Oliveira Araújo, Angel Freddy Godoy Viera, Gregório Varvakis

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

  1. The Author retains copyright in the Work, where the term “Work” shall include all digital objects that may result in subsequent electronic publication or distribution.
  2. Upon acceptance of the Work, the author shall grant to the Publisher the right of first publication of the Work.
  3. The Author shall grant to the Publisher and its agents the nonexclusive perpetual right and license to publish, archive, and make accessible the Work in whole or in part in all forms of media now or hereafter known under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License or its equivalent, which, for the avoidance of doubt, allows others to copy, distribute, and transmit the Work under the following conditions:
    1. Attribution—other users must attribute the Work in the manner specified by the author as indicated on the journal Web site;
    with the understanding that the above condition can be waived with permission from the Author and that where the Work or any of its elements is in the public domain under applicable law, that status is in no way affected by the license.
  4. The Author is able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the nonexclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the Work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), as long as there is provided in the document an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
  5. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post online a prepublication manuscript (but not the Publisher’s final formatted PDF version of the Work) in institutional repositories or on their Websites prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work. Any such posting made before acceptance and publication of the Work shall be updated upon publication to include a reference to the Publisher-assigned DOI (Digital Object Identifier) and a link to the online abstract for the final published Work in the Journal.
  6. Upon Publisher’s request, the Author agrees to furnish promptly to Publisher, at the Author’s own expense, written evidence of the permissions, licenses, and consents for use of third-party material included within the Work, except as determined by Publisher to be covered by the principles of Fair Use.
  7. The Author represents and warrants that:
    1. the Work is the Author’s original work;
    2. the Author has not transferred, and will not transfer, exclusive rights in the Work to any third party;
    3. the Work is not pending review or under consideration by another publisher;
    4. the Work has not previously been published;
    5. the Work contains no misrepresentation or infringement of the Work or property of other authors or third parties; and
    6. the Work contains no libel, invasion of privacy, or other unlawful matter.
  8. The Author agrees to indemnify and hold Publisher harmless from Author’s breach of the representations and warranties contained in Paragraph 6 above, as well as any claim or proceeding relating to Publisher’s use and publication of any content contained in the Work, including third-party content.

Revised 7/16/2018. Revision Description: Removed outdated link. 

Most read articles by the same author(s)