Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: The Methodological Expectations of Cochrane Intervention Reviews (MECIR) require Cochrane authors to search ClinicalTrials.gov (CT.gov) and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) in addition to bibliographic databases. The evidence on how to search trials registers soundly is evolving. According to previous research, high retrieval performance (defined as best sensitivity) is achieved only when using sensitive search strategies in specific interfaces of the trials registers.
Objectives: To determine which search approach in which interface of CT.gov and ICTRP yields the best retrieval performance to identify relevant trials on a review´s topic and to verify previously conducted research.
Methods: We tested searches from CMED reviews using the methodology by Glanville 2014. We tested four search strategies per review topic: sensitive (various terms for intervention/condition) and highly precise (single term for intervention/condition) each run in the basic and advanced interface of the trials registers respectively. We did not evaluate the highly sensitive (various terms for intervention) nor the precise search strategy (single term for intervention), as searches developed for most Cochrane Reviews will include intervention combined with condition.
Results: The reviews comprised pharmacological, complementary, surgical and nutritional interventions. The conditions included type 2 diabetes mellitus, obesity, idiopathic short stature and cardiovascular disease. In most cases the sensitive approach performed better in both trials registers. In CT.gov both search interfaces performed well, but the advanced search offered an improved precision without compromising sensitivity. In ICTRP the standard search was clearly superior to the advanced search.
Conclusions: Our results are consistent with previous findings. When searching trials registers researchers should apply sensitive search strategies including synonyms. In CT.gov both basic and advanced search interfaces can be used for optimal retrieval. In the ICTRP the advance search performes generally poor, therefore researchers should only use the standard search interface.
Objectives: To determine which search approach in which interface of CT.gov and ICTRP yields the best retrieval performance to identify relevant trials on a review´s topic and to verify previously conducted research.
Methods: We tested searches from CMED reviews using the methodology by Glanville 2014. We tested four search strategies per review topic: sensitive (various terms for intervention/condition) and highly precise (single term for intervention/condition) each run in the basic and advanced interface of the trials registers respectively. We did not evaluate the highly sensitive (various terms for intervention) nor the precise search strategy (single term for intervention), as searches developed for most Cochrane Reviews will include intervention combined with condition.
Results: The reviews comprised pharmacological, complementary, surgical and nutritional interventions. The conditions included type 2 diabetes mellitus, obesity, idiopathic short stature and cardiovascular disease. In most cases the sensitive approach performed better in both trials registers. In CT.gov both search interfaces performed well, but the advanced search offered an improved precision without compromising sensitivity. In ICTRP the standard search was clearly superior to the advanced search.
Conclusions: Our results are consistent with previous findings. When searching trials registers researchers should apply sensitive search strategies including synonyms. In CT.gov both basic and advanced search interfaces can be used for optimal retrieval. In the ICTRP the advance search performes generally poor, therefore researchers should only use the standard search interface.