PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Jessie McGowan

Publications and source records attributed to Jessie McGowan.

11 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2006

Errors in search strategies were identified by type and frequency.

OBJECTIVE: Errors in the electronic search strategy of a systematic review may undermine the integrity of the evidence base used in the review. We studied the frequency and types of errors in reviews published by the Cochrane Collaboration. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Data sources were MEDLINE searches from reviews in the Cochrane Library, Issue 3, 2002. To be eligible, systematic reviews must have been of randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials, reported included and excluded studies, and used one or more sections of the Cochrane Collaboration's Highly Sensitive Search Strategy. MEDLINE search strategies not reported in enough detail to be assessed or that were duplicates of a search strategy already assessed for the study were excluded. Two librarians assessed eligibility and scored the eligible electronic search strategies for 11 possible errors. Dual review with consensus was used. RESULTS: Of 105 MEDLINE search strategies examined, 63 were assessed; 31 were excluded because they were inadequately reported, and 11 were duplicates of assessed search strategies. Most (90.5%) of the assessed search strategies contained > or =1 errors (median 2, interquartile range [IQR] 1.0-3.0). Errors that could potentially lower recall of relevant studies were found in 82.5% (median 1, IQR 1.0-2.0) and inconsequential errors (to the evidence base) were found in 60.3% (median 1, IQR 0.0-1.0) of the search strategies. The most common search errors were missed MeSH terms (44.4%), unwarranted explosion of MeSH terms (38.1%), and irrelevant MeSH or free text terms (28.6%). Missed spelling variants, combining MeSH and free text terms in the same line, and failure to tailor the search strategy for other databases occurred with equal frequency (20.6%). Logical operator error occurred in 19.0% of searches. CONCLUSION: When the MEDLINE search strategy used in a systematic review is reported in enough detail to allow assessment, errors are commonly revealed. Additional peer review steps are needed to ensure search quality and freedom from errors.

Bibliometrics↗
PubMed2006

Knowledge for knowledge translation: the role of the Cochrane Collaboration.

Knowledge-translation (KT) activities, including continuing education, should be informed by the totality of available research evidence. Systematic reviews are a generic methodology used to synthesize evidence from a broad range of research methods addressing different questions. Over the past decade, there has been a dramatic increase in the availability of systematic reviews that could support KT activities. However, the conduct of systematic reviews is technically challenging, and it is not surprising that the quality of available reviews is variable. In addition, unless attempts are made to update systematic reviews, they rapidly become out of date. The Cochrane Collaboration is a unique, worldwide, not-for-profit organization that aims to help people make well-informed decisions about all forms of health care by preparing, maintaining, and promoting the accessibility of systematic reviews of the effects of health care interventions. Globally, over 13, 000 consumers, clinicians, policymakers, and researchers are involved with The Cochrane Collaboration and have to date produced over 2, 500 systematic reviews that can be used to inform KT activities. The Cochrane Collaboration publishes its reviews quarterly in The Cochrane Library. Cochrane reviews have been used to develop a number of KT-derivative products for professionals, consumers, and policymakers. Whereas most Cochrane Review groups focus on specific clinical areas, the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group undertakes reviews of interventions to improve health care delivery and health care systems, including reviews of different KT activities. We summarize the activities of The Cochrane Collaboration and how these can contribute to KT activities.

Canada↗
PubMed2006

Canada urgently needs a national network of libraries to access evidence.

Canadian health professionals and their patients are deprived of important evidence to guide health and healthcare decisions, ensure quality and avoid unnecessary deaths because, unlike other developed countries, Canada does not have a national medical library as can be found in the United States' National Library of Medicine and the United Kingdom's National Health Service.

Canada↗
PubMed2005

Systematic reviews need systematic searchers.

PURPOSE: This paper will provide a description of the methods, skills, and knowledge of expert searchers working on systematic review teams. BRIEF DESCRIPTION: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are very important to health care practitioners, who need to keep abreast of the medical literature and make informed decisions. Searching is a critical part of conducting these systematic reviews, as errors made in the search process potentially result in a biased or otherwise incomplete evidence base for the review. Searches for systematic reviews need to be constructed to maximize recall and deal effectively with a number of potentially biasing factors. Librarians who conduct the searches for systematic reviews must be experts. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION: Expert searchers need to understand the specifics about data structure and functions of bibliographic and specialized databases, as well as the technical and methodological issues of searching. Search methodology must be based on research about retrieval practices, and it is vital that expert searchers keep informed about, advocate for, and, moreover, conduct research in information retrieval. Expert searchers are an important part of the systematic review team, crucial throughout the review process-from the development of the proposal and research question to publication.

Databases, Bibliographic↗
PubMed2003

Association of autistic spectrum disorder and the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine: a systematic review of current epidemiological evidence.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the evidence for and against the existence of an association between autistic spectrum disorder (ASD) and the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a systematic review of the medical literature to identify all controlled epidemiological articles examining for an association between ASD and the MMR vaccine. We extracted data from the articles on the characteristics and objectives of the study as well as evidence of an association. RESULTS: Twelve articles met the inclusion criteria. One study found no difference in the rates of ASD and the MMR vaccine in children who were vaccinated and those who were not. Six studies examined for evidence of an increase in ASD associated with an increase in the MMR vaccine coverage, none of which showed evidence of an association. Four studies examined if a variant form of ASD was associated with the MMR vaccine, none of which showed evidence of an association. Eight studies attempted to determine if there was a temporal association between developing ASD and receiving the MMR vaccine. Of these, 1 study identified an increase in parental concern in the 6-month period following vaccination with MMR in one of its analyses. The results of all other studies showed no association between ASD and the MMR vaccine. CONCLUSIONS: The current literature does not suggest an association between ASD and the MMR vaccine; however, limited epidemiological evidence exists to rule out a link between a rare variant form of ASD and the MMR vaccine. Given the real risks of not vaccinating and that the risks and existence of variant ASD remain theoretical, current policies should continue to advocate the use of the MMR vaccine.

Autistic Disorder↗
PubMed2002

Teaching evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine: 5. Interpreting the results of a study on therapy and applying them to a patient.

Practicing evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) requires that practitioners develop an ability to understand and appropriately apply the results of published studies addressing questions related to their clinical practice. This paper describes a process by which CAM practitioners can interpret the results of studies evaluating therapeutic interventions and then determine if they can apply these results to their patients. We describe a process for interpreting the results of a study on therapy that involves determining the estimate of the magnitude of the therapy's effect and determining the precision of this estimate. We then describe a process for determining whether the results of a study on therapy can be applied to a given patient that involves determining the extent to which patients in the study differ from the patient being treated and determining if the study addressed all outcomes of interest.

Child↗
PubMed2002

Teaching evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine: 3. Asking the questions and identifying the information.

Practicing evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine (EBCAM) requires skills in accessing current valid literature on clinical queries. This requires searching a variety of sources within a broad scope of scientific disciplines. This daunting task requires effective skills for accessing information from both print and electronic sources. This paper identifies the progression from question formulation through to searching and acquiring the valid information. In the evolving information age, complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) practitioners require informational databases and knowledge of search terminology. This paper suggests practical strategies for successful database searches in support of EBCAM.

Child↗