PEDIATRICS Vol. 83 No. 4 April 1989, pp. 543-546
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow E-mail this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My File Cabinet
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via CrossRef
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Kirpalani, H.
Right arrow Articles by Sinclair, J. C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Kirpalani, H.
Right arrow Articles by Sinclair, J. C.

Searching MEDLINE for Randomized Clinical Trials Involving Care of the Newborn

Haresh Kirpalani BM, MRCP1, Barbara Schmidt MD1, K. Ann McKibbon MLS1, R. Brian Haynes MD, PhD1, and John C. Sinclair MD1

1 The Departments of Pediatrics, Cilnical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Medicine, and Health Information Research Unit, McMaster University Faculty of Health Sciences, Hamilton, Ontario, and The Hospital For Sick Children, Division of Neonatology, Toronto

Randomized clinical trials make up only a small fraction of published articles concerning care of the newborn infant and an even smaller fraction of articles about all human subjects. The busy pediatrician who wants to keep abreast of the medical literature requires strategies to detect such relevant studies promptly and reliably. Computer searching of MEDLINE is an attractive, potentially powerful but not sufficiently validated means of achieving this goal. Therefore, the sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value of two MEDLINE search strategies designed to detect randomized clinical trials for prevention and treatment of newborn diseases among all original articles about human subjects appearing in ten pediatric and general medical journals during 1985 were determined. The yield of both MEDLINE searches was compared to that of a manual search. Fifty-three randomized clinical trials of newborn care were identified by hand search among 233 articles concerning care of the newborn and 2,988 original articles about human subjects. The sensitivities of the MEDLINE searches were 53% and 34%, respectively, and the positive predictive values were 82% and 69%, respectively. Specificity of both computer searches was virtually 100%. Twenty-one randomized clinical trials were not identified by either MEDLINE search strategy, 17 of them for failure of the indexer to assign any methodologic terms at all or failure to assign sufficiently stringent methodologic terms. Consequently, sensitivities were higher, 77% and 68% respectively, when no methodologic terms were used during repeat searches. However, positive predictive values decreased concomitantly to 20% or less. It is concluded that searching MEDLINE for randomized clinical trials is not yet sufficiently sensitive to be recommended as the sole strategy of keeping up with this literature.

Key Words: randomized clinical trial • MEDLINE • literature search

Submitted on February 19, 1988
Accepted on June 18, 1988




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 NeoReviewsHome page
L. L. Wright
The Role of Follow-up in Randomized Controlled Trials
NeoReviews, November 1, 2001; 2(11): e257 - 266.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Health Education JournalHome page
A. Harden, G. Peersman, S. Oliver, and A. Oakley
Identifying primary research on electronic databases to inform decision-making in health promotion: the case of sexual health promotion
Health Education Journal, January 1, 1999; 58(3): 290 - 301.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Arch DermatolHome page
M. Bigby
Evidence-Based Medicine in a Nutshell: A Guide to Finding and Using the Best Evidence in Caring for Patients
Arch Dermatol, December 1, 1998; 134(12): 1609 - 1618.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 BMJHome page
K Dickersin, R Scherer, and C Lefebvre
Systematic Reviews: Identifying relevant studies for systematic reviews
BMJ, November 12, 1994; 309(6964): 1286 - 1291.
[Abstract] [Full Text]

Home page
 Stat Methods Med ResHome page
T. C. Harvard and J. Lau
Meta-analytic stimulus for changes in clinical trials
Statistical Methods in Medical Research, August 1, 1993; 2(2): 161 - 172.
[Abstract] [PDF]