| Title |
The development of PubMed search strategies for patient preferences for treatment outcomes
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Research Methodology, July 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12874-016-0192-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ralph van Hoorn, Wietske Kievit, Andrew Booth, Kati Mozygemba, Kristin Bakke Lysdahl, Pietro Refolo, Dario Sacchini, Ansgar Gerhardus, Gert Jan van der Wilt, Marcia Tummers |
| Abstract |
The importance of respecting patients' preferences when making treatment decisions is increasingly recognized. Efficiently retrieving papers from the scientific literature reporting on the presence and nature of such preferences can help to achieve this goal. The objective of this study was to create a search filter for PubMed to help retrieve evidence on patient preferences for treatment outcomes. A total of 27 journals were hand-searched for articles on patient preferences for treatment outcomes published in 2011. Selected articles served as a reference set. To develop optimal search strategies to retrieve this set, all articles in the reference set were randomly split into a development and a validation set. MeSH-terms and keywords retrieved using PubReMiner were tested individually and as combinations in PubMed and evaluated for retrieval performance (e.g. sensitivity (Se) and specificity (Sp)). Of 8238 articles, 22 were considered to report empirical evidence on patient preferences for specific treatment outcomes. The best search filters reached Se of 100 % [95 % CI 100-100] with Sp of 95 % [94-95 %] and Sp of 97 % [97-98 %] with 75 % Se [74-76 %]. In the validation set these queries reached values of Se of 90 % [89-91 %] with Sp 94 % [93-95 %] and Se of 80 % [79-81 %] with Sp of 97 % [96-96 %], respectively. Narrow and broad search queries were developed which can help in retrieving literature on patient preferences for treatment outcomes. Identifying such evidence may in turn enhance the incorporation of patient preferences in clinical decision making and health technology assessment. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 38 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 9 | 24% |
| Canada | 5 | 13% |
| United States | 4 | 11% |
| Australia | 3 | 8% |
| France | 3 | 8% |
| Slovenia | 1 | 3% |
| Spain | 1 | 3% |
| Colombia | 1 | 3% |
| Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 9 | 24% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 19 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 9 | 24% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 5 | 13% |
| Scientists | 5 | 13% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 2% |
| United States | 1 | 2% |
| Portugal | 1 | 2% |
| Australia | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 45 | 92% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Librarian | 10 | 20% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 14% |
| Researcher | 5 | 10% |
| Other | 4 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 7 | 14% |
| Unknown | 13 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 16 | 33% |
| Psychology | 4 | 8% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 4% |
| Chemistry | 2 | 4% |
| Arts and Humanities | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 8 | 16% |
| Unknown | 15 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 23. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 November 2016.
All research outputs
#1,550,839
of 24,312,464 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#191
of 2,158 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29,763
of 372,701 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#4
of 40 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,312,464 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,158 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 372,701 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 40 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.