NewsMeSH: A new classifier designed to annotate health news with MeSH headings.

MOTIVATION: In the age of big data, the amount of scientific information available online dwarfs the ability of current tools to support researchers in locating and securing access to the necessary materials. Well-structured open data and the smart systems that make the appropriate use of it are invaluable and can help health researchers and professionals to find the appropriate information by, e.g., configuring the monitoring of information or refining a specific query on a disease. METHODS: We present an automated text classifier approach based on the MEDLINE/MeSH thesaurus, trained on the manual annotation of more than 26 million expert-annotated scientific abstracts. The classifier was developed tailor-fit to the public health and health research domain experts, in the light of their specific challenges and needs. We have applied the proposed methodology on three specific health domains: the Coronavirus, Mental Health and Diabetes, considering the pertinence of the first, and the known relations with the other two health topics. RESULTS: A classifier is trained on the MEDLINE dataset that can automatically annotate text, such as scientific articles, news articles or medical reports with relevant concepts from the MeSH thesaurus. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed text classifier shows promising results in the evaluation of health-related news. The application of the developed classifier enables the exploration of news and extraction of health-related insights, based on the MeSH thesaurus, through a similar workflow as in the usage of PubMed, with which most health researchers are familiar.

A validation study revealed differences in design and performance of MEDLINE search filters for qualitative research.

OBJECTIVES: Several search filters exist to identify qualitative research, but so far none of them has been validated with an independent set of relevant references irrespective of a medical topic. The objective of this study was to provide a comparative overview of validation results for various MEDLINE search filters. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Search filters were tested for plausibility. A relative recall approach was used to generate a gold standard based on an overview of systematic reviews of qualitative studies. For each review, the included qualitative studies were collected and checked for MEDLINE-indexing. The body of indexed articles yielded the gold standard. Validation tests were conducted to determine whether the references of the gold standard could be identified with the respective search filters. RESULTS: Thirteen search filters were validated in MEDLINE. One search filter by Wong et al. (2004) was found to be the most sensitive (93.63%). While medical subject heading "qualitative research" achieved the best precision (2.15%), sensitivity was the lowest (22.56%). University of Texas provided the best balanced search filter with a sensitivity of 81.96% and a precision of 0.80%. CONCLUSION: Search filters to identify qualitative research in MEDLINE differ greatly in design and performance. The selection of the appropriate search filter depends on project-specific demands and resources.

Methodology and reporting characteristics of studies using interrupted time series design in healthcare.

BACKGROUND: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are considered the gold standard when evaluating the causal effects of healthcare interventions. When RCTs cannot be used (e.g. ethically difficult), the interrupted time series (ITS) design is a possible alternative. ITS is one of the strongest quasi-experimental designs. The aim of this methodological study was to describe how ITS designs were being used, the design characteristics, and reporting in the healthcare setting. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE for reports of ITS designs published in 2015 which had a minimum of two data points collected pre-intervention and one post-intervention. There was no restriction on participants, language of study, or type of outcome. Data were summarised using appropriate summary statistics. RESULTS: One hundred and sixteen studies were included in the study. Interventions evaluated were mainly programs 41 (35%) and policies 32 (28%). Data were usually collected at monthly intervals, 74 (64%). Of the 115 studies that reported an analysis, the most common method was segmented regression (78%), 55% considered autocorrelation, and only seven reported a sample size calculation. Estimation of intervention effects were reported as change in slope (84%) and change in level (70%) and 21% reported long-term change in levels. CONCLUSIONS: This methodological study identified problems in the reporting of design features and results of ITS studies, and highlights the need for future work in the development of formal reporting guidelines and methodological work.

A new approach and gold standard toward author disambiguation in MEDLINE.

OBJECTIVE: Author-centric analyses of fast-growing biomedical reference databases are challenging due to author ambiguity. This problem has been mainly addressed through author disambiguation using supervised machine-learning algorithms. Such algorithms, however, require adequately designed gold standards that reflect the reference database properly. In this study we used MEDLINE to build the first unbiased gold standard in a reference database and improve over the existing state of the art in author disambiguation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Following a new corpus design method, publication pairs randomly picked from MEDLINE were evaluated by both crowdsourcing and expert curators. Because the latter showed higher accuracy than crowdsourcing, expert curators were tasked to create a full corpus. The corpus was then used to explore new features that could improve state-of-the-art author disambiguation algorithms that would not have been discoverable with previously existing gold standards. RESULTS: We created a gold standard based on 1900 publication pairs that shows close similarity to MEDLINE in terms of chronological distribution and information completeness. A machine-learning algorithm that includes new features related to the ethnic origin of authors showed significant improvements over the current state of the art and demonstrates the necessity of realistic gold standards to further develop effective author disambiguation algorithms. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: An unbiased gold standard can give a more accurate picture of the status of author disambiguation research and help in the discovery of new features for machine learning. The principles and methods shown here can be applied to other reference databases beyond MEDLINE. The gold standard and code used for this study are available at the following repository: https://github.com/amorgani/AND/.

Exploring PubMed as a reliable resource for scholarly communications services.

OBJECTIVE: PubMed's provision of MEDLINE and other National Library of Medicine (NLM) resources has made it one of the most widely accessible biomedical resources globally. The growth of PubMed Central (PMC) and public access mandates have affected PubMed's composition. The authors tested recent claims that content in PMC is of low quality and affects PubMed's reliability, while exploring PubMed's role in the current scholarly communications landscape. METHODS: The percentage of MEDLINE-indexed records was assessed in PubMed and various subsets of records from PMC. Data were retrieved via the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) interface, and follow-up interviews with a PMC external reviewer and staff at NLM were conducted. RESULTS: Almost all PubMed content (91%) is indexed in MEDLINE; however, since the launch of PMC, the percentage of PubMed records indexed in MEDLINE has slowly decreased. This trend is the result of an increase in PMC content from journals that are not indexed in MEDLINE and not a result of author manuscripts submitted to PMC in compliance with public access policies. Author manuscripts in PMC continue to be published in MEDLINE-indexed journals at a high rate (85%). The interviewees clarified the difference between the sources, with MEDLINE serving as a highly selective index of journals in biomedical literature and PMC serving as an open archive of quality biomedical and life sciences literature and a repository of funded research. CONCLUSION: The differing scopes of PMC and MEDLINE will likely continue to affect their overlap; however, quality control exists in the maintenance and facilitation of both resources, and funding from major grantors is a major component of quality assurance in PMC.

Correcting duplicate publications: follow up study of MEDLINE tagged duplications.

INTRODUCTION: As MEDLINE indexers tag similar articles as duplicates even when journals have not addressed the duplication(s), we sought to determine the reasons behind the tagged duplications, and if the journals had undertaken or had planned to undertake any actions to address them. MATERIALS AND METHODS: On 16 January 2013, we extracted all tagged duplicate publications (DPs), analysed published notices, and then contacted MEDLINE and editors regarding cases unaddressed by notices. For non-respondents, we compared full text of the articles. We followed up the study for the next 5 years to see if any changes occurred. RESULTS: We found 1011 indexed DPs, which represented 555 possible DP cases (in MEDLINE, both the original and the duplicate are assigned a DP tag). Six cases were excluded as we could not obtain their full text. Additional 190 (35%) cases were incorrectly tagged as DPs. Of 359 actual cases of DPs, 200 (54%) were due to publishers' actions (e.g. identical publications in the same journal), and 159 (46%) due to authors' actions (e.g. article submission to more than one journal). Of the 359 cases, 185 (52%) were addressed by notices, but only 25 (7%) retracted. Following our notifications, MEDLINE corrected 138 (73%) incorrectly tagged cases, and editors retracted 8 articles. CONCLUSIONS: Despite clear policies on how to handle DPs, just half (54%) of the DPs in MEDLINE were addressed by journals and only 9% retracted. Publishers, editors, and indexers need to develop and implement standards for better correction of duplicate published records.

Study filters for non-randomized studies of interventions consistently lacked sensitivity upon external validation.

BACKGROUND: Little evidence is available on searches for non-randomized studies (NRS) in bibliographic databases within the framework of systematic reviews. For instance, it is currently unclear whether, when searching for NRS, effective restriction of the search strategy to certain study types is possible. The following challenges need to be considered: 1) For non-randomized controlled trials (NRCTs): whether they can be identified by established filters for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). 2) For other NRS types (such as cohort studies): whether study filters exist for each study type and, if so, which performance measures they have. The aims of the present analysis were to identify and validate existing NRS filters in MEDLINE as well as to evaluate established RCT filters using a set of MEDLINE citations. METHODS: Our analysis is a retrospective analysis of study filters based on MEDLINE citations of NRS from Cochrane reviews. In a first step we identified existing NRS filters. For the generation of the reference set, we screened Cochrane reviews evaluating NRS, which covered a broad range of study types. The citations of the studies included in the Cochrane reviews were identified via the reviews' bibliographies and the corresponding PubMed identification numbers (PMIDs) were extracted from PubMed. Random samples comprising up to 200 citations (i.e. 200 PMIDs) each were created for each study type to generate the test sets. RESULTS: A total of 271 Cochrane reviews from 41 different Cochrane groups were eligible for data extraction. We identified 14 NRS filters published since 2001. The study filters generated between 660,000 and 9.5 million hits in MEDLINE. Most filters covered several study types. The reference set included 2890 publications classified as NRS for the generation of the test sets. Twelve test sets were generated (one for each study type), of which 8 included 200 citations each. None of the study filters achieved sufficient sensitivity (≥ 92%) for all of the study types targeted. CONCLUSIONS: The performance of current NRS filters is insufficient for effective use in daily practice. It is therefore necessary to develop new strategies (e.g. new NRS filters in combination with other search techniques). The challenges related to NRS should be taken into account.

Medline indexing success and future directions for Irish Journal of Psychological Medicine.

Irish Journal of Psychological Medicine (IJPM) was recently accepted for indexing on Medline. This reflects the high scientific quality of articles published in the journal and highlights the excellent work by publishers, authors, reviewers and the journal editorial board who have contributed to the journal's development over many years. IJPM remains committed to further progression through constant innovation and maintaining the excellent standard of publishing to date. We look forward to promoting our aims of improving knowledge and advocating for better mental health services by continuing to highlight key topics of current relevance to mental health.

Development and validation of a search filter to identify equity-focused studies: reducing the number needed to screen.

BACKGROUND: Health inequalities, worse health associated with social and economic disadvantage, are reported by a minority of research articles. Locating these studies when conducting an equity-focused systematic review is challenging due to a deficit in standardised terminology, indexing, and lack of validated search filters. Current reporting guidelines recommend not applying filters, meaning that increased resources are needed at the screening stage. METHODS: We aimed to design and test search filters to locate studies that reported outcomes by a social determinant of health. We developed and expanded a 'specific terms strategy' using keywords and subject headings compiled from recent systematic reviews that applied an equity filter. A 'non-specific strategy' was compiled from phrases used to describe equity analyses that were reported in titles and abstracts, and related subject headings. Gold standard evaluation and validation sets were compiled. The filters were developed in MEDLINE, adapted for Embase and tested in both. We set a target of 0.90 sensitivity (95% CI; 0.84, 0.94) in retrieving 150 gold standard validation papers. We noted the reduction in the number needed to screen in a proposed equity-focused systematic review and the proportion of equity-focused reviews we assessed in the project that applied an equity filter to their search strategy. RESULTS: The specific terms strategy filtered out 93-95% of all records, and retrieved a validation set of articles with a sensitivity of 0.84 in MEDLINE (0.77, 0.89), and 0.87 (0.81, 0.92) in Embase. When combined (Boolean 'OR') with the non-specific strategy sensitivity was 0.92 (0.86, 0.96) in MEDLINE (Embase 0.94; 0.89, 0.97). The number needed to screen was reduced by 77% by applying the specific terms strategy, and by 59.7% (MEDLINE) and 63.5% (Embase) by applying the combined strategy. Eighty-one per cent of systematic reviews filtered studies by equity. CONCLUSIONS: A combined approach of using specific and non-specific terms is recommended if systematic reviewers wish to filter studies for reporting outcomes by social determinants. Future research should concentrate on the indexing standardisation for equity studies and further development and testing of both specific and non-specific terms for accurate study retrieval.

The search and selection for primary studies in systematic reviews published in dental journals indexed in MEDLINE was not fully reproducible.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate whether the reporting of search strategies and the primary study selection process in dental systematic reviews is reproducible. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A survey of systematic reviews published in MEDLINE-indexed dental journals from June 2015 to June 2016 was conducted. Study selection was performed independently by two authors, and the reproducibility of the selection process was assessed using a tool consisting of 12 criteria. Regression analyses were implemented to evaluate any associations between degrees of reporting (measured by the number of items positively answered) and journal impact factor (IF), presence of meta-analysis, and number of citations of the systematic review in Google Scholar. RESULTS: Five hundred and thirty systematic reviews were identified. Following our 12 criteria, none of the systematic reviews had complete reporting of the search strategies and selection process. Eight (1.5%) systematic reviews reported the list of excluded articles (with reasons for exclusion) after title and abstract assessment. Systematic reviews with more positive answers to the criteria were significantly associated with higher journal IF, number of citations, and inclusion of meta-analysis. CONCLUSION: Search strategies and primary study selection process in systematic reviews published in MEDLINE-indexed dental journals may not be fully reproducible.

Are MEDLINE searches sufficient for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of the diagnostic accuracy of depression screening tools? A review of meta-analyses.

OBJECTIVE: Database searches for studies of diagnostic test accuracy are notoriously difficult to filter, highly resource-intensive, and a potential barrier to quality evidence synthesis. We examined published meta-analyses of depression screening tool accuracy to evaluate the (1) proportion of included primary studies found in any online database in the original meta-analyses that were indexed in MEDLINE; (2) the proportion of patients from MEDLINE-indexed studies; and (3) the proportion of depression cases from studies indexed in MEDLINE. METHODS: MEDLINE and PsycINFO were searched from January 1, 2005 through October 31, 2014 for meta-analyses in any language on the accuracy of depression screening tools. RESULTS: We identified 16 eligible meta-analyses that included 398 primary study citations, which had been identified via an online database in the original meta-analyses, including 257 unique citations and 234 unique patient samples. The 234 unique patient samples included 69,957 total patients and 11,867 depression cases. Of these, 220 samples (94%) were from studies indexed in MEDLINE, including 97% of all patients and 96% of all depression cases. When applying a peer-reviewed search strategy in MEDLINE, 91% of all samples, 96% of patients and 95% of depression cases were retrieved. Results were similar for total and unique citations. CONCLUSIONS: Restricting searches to MEDLINE may capture almost all eligible studies, patients and depression cases. Although not examined in the present study, MEDLINE may not be indexed as quickly as other databases. Thus, MEDLINE searches should be complemented by date-limited searches of other databases for recent citations.

Quality of pharmacy-specific Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) assignment in pharmacy journals indexed in MEDLINE.

BACKGROUND: The Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) is the National Library of Medicine (NLM) controlled vocabulary for indexing articles. Inaccuracies in the MeSH thesaurus have been reported for several areas including pharmacy. OBJECTIVES: To assess the quality of pharmacy-specific MeSH assignment to articles indexed in pharmacy journals. METHODS: The 10 journals containing the highest number of articles published in 2012 indexed under the MeSH 'Pharmacists' were identified. All articles published over a 5-year period (2008-2012) in the 10 previously selected journals were retrieved from PubMed. MeSH terms used to index these articles were extracted and pharmacy-specific MeSH terms were identified. The frequency of use of pharmacy-specific MeSH terms was calculated across journals. RESULTS: A total of 6989 articles were retrieved from the 10 pharmacy journals, of which 328 (4.7%) were articles not fully indexed and therefore did not contain any MeSH terms assigned. Among the 6661 articles fully indexed, the mean number of MeSH terms was 10.1 (SD = 4.0), being 1.0 (SD = 1.3) considered as Major MeSH. Both values significantly varied across journals. The mean number of pharmacy-specific MeSH terms per article was 0.9 (SD = 1.2). A total of 3490 (52.4%) of the 6661 articles were indexed in pharmacy journals without a single pharmacy-specific MeSH. Of the total 67193 MeSH terms assigned to articles, on average 10.5% (SD = 13.9) were pharmacy-specific MeSH. A statistically significant different pattern of pharmacy-specific MeSH assignment was identified across journals (Kruskal-Wallis P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The quality of assignment of the existing pharmacy-specific MeSH terms to articles indexed in pharmacy journals can be improved to further enhance evidence gathering in pharmacy. Over half of the articles published in the top-10 journals publishing pharmacy literature were indexed without a single pharmacy-specific MeSH.

How equity is addressed in clinical practice guidelines: a content analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Considering equity into guidelines presents methodological challenges. This study aims to qualitatively synthesise the methods for incorporating equity in clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). SETTING: Content analysis of methodological publications. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Methodological publications were included if they provided checklists/frameworks on when, how and to what extent equity should be incorporated in CPGs. DATA SOURCES: We electronically searched MEDLINE, retrieved references, and browsed guideline development organisation websites from inception to January 2013. After study selection by two authors, general characteristics and checklists items/framework components from included studies were extracted. Based on the questions or items from checklists/frameworks (unit of analysis), content analysis was conducted to identify themes and questions/items were grouped into these themes. PRIMARY OUTCOMES: The primary outcomes were methodological themes and processes on how to address equity issues in guideline development. RESULTS: 8 studies with 10 publications were included from 3405 citations. In total, a list of 87 questions/items was generated from 17 checklists/frameworks. After content analysis, questions were grouped into eight themes ('scoping questions', 'searching relevant evidence', 'appraising evidence and recommendations', 'formulating recommendations', 'monitoring implementation', 'providing a flow chart to include equity in CPGs', and 'others: reporting of guidelines and comments from stakeholders' for CPG developers and 'assessing the quality of CPGs' for CPG users). Four included studies covered more than five of these themes. We also summarised the process of guideline development based on the themes mentioned above. CONCLUSIONS: For disadvantaged population-specific CPGs, eight important methodological issues identified in this review should be considered when including equity in CPGs under the guidance of a scientific guideline development manual.

Failure or success of search strategies to identify adverse effects of medical devices: a feasibility study using a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Research has indicated that adverse effects terms are increasingly prevalent in the title, abstract or indexing terms of articles that contain adverse drug effects data in MEDLINE and Embase. However, it is unknown whether adverse effects terms are present in the database records of articles that contain adverse effects data of medical devices, and thus, to what extent the development of an adverse effects search filter for medical devices may be feasible. METHODS: A case study systematic review of a medical device was selected. The included studies from a systematic review of the safety of recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 (rhBMP-2) for spinal fusion were used in the analysis. For each included study, the corresponding database record on MEDLINE and Embase was assessed to measure the presence or absence of adverse effects terms in the title, abstract or indexing. The performance of each potential adverse effects search term was also measured and compared. RESULTS: There were 82 publications (49 studies) included in the systematic review with 51 of these indexed on MEDLINE and 55 on Embase. Ninety-four percent (48/51) of the records on MEDLINE and 95% (52/55) of the records on Embase contained at least one adverse effects related search term. The wide variety of adverse effects terms included in the title, abstract or indexing of bibliographic records, and the lack of any individual high-performing search terms suggests that a combination of terms in different fields is required to identify adverse effects of medical devices. In addition, the most successful search terms differed from the most successful terms for identifying adverse drug effects. CONCLUSIONS: The search filters currently available for adverse drug effects are not necessarily useful for searching adverse effects data of medical devices. The presence of adverse effects terms in the bibliographic records of articles on medical devices, however, indicates that combinations of adverse effects search terms may be useful in search strategies in MEDLINE and Embase. The results, therefore, suggest that not only a search filter for the adverse effects of medical devices is feasible, but also that it should be a research priority.

Adherence to ICCS nomenclature guidelines in subsequent literature: a bibliometric study.

AIMS: Since the publication of the 2006 International Children's Continence Society (ICCS) guidelines on terminologies for lower urinary tract dysfunction in children, little is known of their impact. In this study, we aim to quantify the adherence to the guidelines in the published literature, and to examine whether Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) in MEDLINE reflect the recommended "new" ICCS terminology. METHODS: Seven pairs of pre-specified paired terms (obsolete and recommended by the ICCS) were searched, limited to paediatric literature published between 2002 and 2010. Their use in the literature was compared between the pre-guideline (2002-2005) and post-guideline (2007-2010) period and across geographical regions. MeSH in MEDLINE were examined for the use of ICCS preferred terminology. RESULTS: Publications in paediatric urinary incontinence have shown a 49% increase from 2002-2005 to 2007-2010 (55-82 per year). There was about a fourfold increase in the likelihood of usage of ICCS recommended terminologies post ICCS guideline publication (OR: 4.19, 95% CI: 3.04-5.78, P < 0.001). Approximately 25% of the studies published between 2007 and 2010 used obsolete terminologies. Analysis indicated satisfactory uptake for most terms, with the exception of "urotherapy." There was no significant geographical variation in uptake. More than half of the ICCS-recommended terms (4/7) did not appear in the current MeSH indexing tree and scope notes. CONCLUSIONS: Overall uptake of recommended terms following release of ICCS terminology guidelines was encouraging although it remains suboptimal for certain terms. Efforts need to be made to improve the current MEDLINE indexing so that MeSH terms reflect terminology recommended by the ICCS.

Reumatología Clínica ha sido incluida en Medline: Por fin / No disponible

No disponible