Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: Little is known about the efficiency of search strategies to update Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs).
Objectives: To compare alternative search strategies with the standard exhaustive search.
Methods: We have randomly selected a sample of recommendations from four CPGs (Management of Major Depression, Prevention and Treatment of Obesity, Prevention of Stroke, Prostate Cancer Treatment) from the CPGs National Program in Spain. A search strategy in McMaster PLUS (http://hiru.mcmaster.ca/hiru/HIRU McMaster PLUS Projects.aspx), and a restrictive search strategy in MEDLINE trough PubMed Clinical Queries have been compared to an exhaustive search (gold standard). We will determine sensitivity, specificity, precision, and accuracy.
Results: We have: (1) Run the three search strategies; (2) Screened reference pertinence (according to the topic of interest, study design and publication type), (3) Matched the references with recommendations; (4) Surveyed clinicians and methodologists to check their relevance, and to identify key references (that modify a recommendation). Finally we will evaluate the level of agreement between the three search strategies.
Conclusions: Traditional methods of updating through exhaustive search strategy are laborious and expensive. Alternative methods, such as highly sensitive and specific search filters, may help. Our results will inform guideline developers about the feasibility and efficiency of several search strategies to maintain the validity of CPGs. Our results could have major implications for a more efficient use of resources in the CPG arena.
Objectives: To compare alternative search strategies with the standard exhaustive search.
Methods: We have randomly selected a sample of recommendations from four CPGs (Management of Major Depression, Prevention and Treatment of Obesity, Prevention of Stroke, Prostate Cancer Treatment) from the CPGs National Program in Spain. A search strategy in McMaster PLUS (http://hiru.mcmaster.ca/hiru/HIRU McMaster PLUS Projects.aspx), and a restrictive search strategy in MEDLINE trough PubMed Clinical Queries have been compared to an exhaustive search (gold standard). We will determine sensitivity, specificity, precision, and accuracy.
Results: We have: (1) Run the three search strategies; (2) Screened reference pertinence (according to the topic of interest, study design and publication type), (3) Matched the references with recommendations; (4) Surveyed clinicians and methodologists to check their relevance, and to identify key references (that modify a recommendation). Finally we will evaluate the level of agreement between the three search strategies.
Conclusions: Traditional methods of updating through exhaustive search strategy are laborious and expensive. Alternative methods, such as highly sensitive and specific search filters, may help. Our results will inform guideline developers about the feasibility and efficiency of several search strategies to maintain the validity of CPGs. Our results could have major implications for a more efficient use of resources in the CPG arena.