The development of search filters for adverse effects of medical devices in medline and embase.

BACKGROUND: Objectively derived search filters for adverse drug effects and complications in surgery have been developed but not for medical device adverse effects. OBJECTIVE: To develop and validate search filters to retrieve evidence on medical device adverse effects from ovid medline and embase. METHODS: We identified systematic reviews from Epistemonikos and the Health Technology Assessment (hta) database. Included studies within these reviews that reported on medical device adverse effects were randomly divided into three test sets and one validation set of records. Using word frequency analysis from one test set, we constructed a sensitivity maximising search strategy. This strategy was refined using two other test sets, then validated. RESULTS: From 186 systematic reviews which met our inclusion criteria, 1984 unique included studies were available from medline and 1986 from embase. Generic adverse effects searches in medline and embase achieved 84% and 83% sensitivity. Recall was improved to over 90%, however, when specific adverse effects terms were added. CONCLUSION: We have derived and validated novel search filters that retrieve over 80% of records with medical device adverse effects data in medline and embase. The addition of specific adverse effects terms is required to achieve higher levels of sensitivity.

Almost half of references in reports on new and emerging nondrug health technologies are grey literature.

OBJECTIVE: The research investigated how frequently grey literature is used in reports on new and emerging nondrug health technologies, which sources are most cited, and how grey literature searching is reported. METHODS: A retrospective review of references cited in horizon scanning reports on nondrug health technologies-including medical devices, laboratory tests, and procedures-was conducted. A quasi-random sample of up to three reports per agency was selected from a compilation of reports published in 2014 by international horizon scanning services and health organizations. RESULTS: Twenty-two reports from 8 agencies were included in the analysis. On average, 47% (288/617) of references listed in the bibliographies of the horizon scanning reports were grey literature. The most frequently cited type of grey literature was information from manufacturers (30% of all grey literature references), regulatory agencies (10%), clinical trial registries (9%), and other horizon scans or evidence synthesis reports (9%). The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and ClincalTrials.gov were the most frequently cited specific sources, constituting 7% and 8% of grey literature references, respectively. Over two-thirds (15/22) of the analyzed reports provided some details on search methodology; all 15 of these reported searching some grey literature. CONCLUSIONS: In this sample, grey literature represented almost half of the references cited in reports on new and emerging nondrug health technologies. Of these grey literature references, almost half came from three sources: the manufacturers, ClincalTrials.gov, and the FDA. There was wide variation in the other sources cited. Literature search methodology was often insufficiently reported for analysis.