[Limiting a Medline/PubMed query to the "best" articles using the JCR relative impact factor]. / Limiter une requête Medline/PubMed aux articles publiés dans les revues les plus citées de chaque discipline.

BACKGROUND: Medline/PubMed is the most frequently used medical bibliographic research database. The aim of this study was to propose a new generic method to limit any Medline/PubMed query based on the relative impact factor and the A & B categories of the SIGAPS score. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The entire PubMed corpus was used for the feasibility study, then ten frequent diseases in terms of PubMed indexing and the citations of four Nobel prize winners. The relative impact factor (RIF) was calculated by medical specialty defined in Journal Citation Reports. The two queries, which included all the journals in category A (or A OR B), were added to any Medline/PubMed query as a central point of the feasibility study. RESULTS: Limitation using the SIGAPS category A was larger than the when using the Core Clinical Journals (CCJ): 15.65% of PubMed corpus vs 8.64% for CCJ. The response time of this limit applied to the entire PubMed corpus was less than two seconds. For five diseases out of ten, limiting the citations with the RIF was more effective than with the CCJ. For the four Nobel prize winners, limiting the citations with the RIF was more effective than the CCJ. CONCLUSION: The feasibility study to apply a new filter based on the relative impact factor on any Medline/PubMed query was positive.

Risk factors and clinical outcome of unsuspected pulmonary embolism in cancer patients: a case-control study.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the risk factors and outcome of unsuspected pulmonary embolism (UPE) in cancer patients. OBJECTIVES: To assess the risk factors and outcome of UPE in cancer patients. METHODS: The charts of 66 patients diagnosed with UPE were reviewed. Two control groups were selected: 132 cancer patients without pulmonary embolism (PE) and 65 cancer patients with clinically suspected PE. Variables associated with UPE were identified by multivariable analysis. Six-month survival and recurrent venous thromboembolism were compared by use of Cox proportional analysis. RESULTS: Twenty-seven (40.9%) patients with UPE had symptoms suggesting PE. Adenocarcinoma (odds ratio [OR] 4.45; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.98-9.97), advanced age (OR 1.18; 95% CI 1.02-1.38), recent chemotherapy (OR 4.62; 95% CI 2.26-9.44), performance status > 2 (OR 7.31; 95% CI 1.90-28.15) and previous venous thromboembolism (OR 4.47; 95% CI 1.16-17.13) were associated with UPE. When adjusted for tumor stage and performance status, 6-month mortality did not differ between patients with UPE and patients without PE (hazard ratio 1.40; 95% CI 0.53-3.66; P = 0.50). Patients with UPE were more likely to have central venous catheters and chemotherapy and less likely to have proximal clots than patients with clinically suspected PE. Recurrent venous thromboembolism occurred in 6.1% and 7.7% of patients with UPE and symptomatic PE, respectively. CONCLUSION: UPE is not associated with an increased risk of death. Patients with clinically suspected PE and those with UPE have similar risks of recurrent venous thromboembolism.