Søgefiltre

Et søgefilter er en søgestreng som kan opfange bestemte studietyper eller specifikke emner.

Man skal være opmærksom på, at brug af søgefiltre kan resultere i, at et antal relevante studier kan være udeladt i søgeresultatet (Leeflang, Rutjes, Reitsma & Bossuyt, 2006). Man bør derfor gennemse og eventuelt evaluere søgefiltrene før man anvender dem (Glanville et al., 2008).

Glanville, J., Bayliss, S., Booth, A., Dundar, Y., Fernandes, H., Fleeman, N. D., . . . Welch, K. (2008). So many filters, so little time: the development of a search filter appraisal checklist. J Med Libr Assoc, 96(4), 356-361. doi: 10.3163/1536-5050.96.4.011.

Leeflang, M. M., Scholten, R. J., Rutjes, A. W., Reitsma, J. B., & Bossuyt, P. M. (2006). Use of methodological search filters to identify diagnostic accuracy studies can lead to the omission of relevant studies. J Clin Epidemiol, 59(3), 234-240. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.07.014.

  • Diagnostiske Studier

    Diagnostiske studier er ikke umiddelbart lette at indkredse ved hjælp af et filter og Beynon et al (2013) finder ikke et filter med en recall over 90 (filtret kan finde mindst 90% af de relevante studier) og precision over 10 (mindst 10% i søgeresultatet er relevante studier).

    Herunder er en sammenskrivning af to testede filtre med meget høj recall (se Leeflang, 2006 for dokumentation). Filtret er tilpasset PubMed. Klik på tekstfeltet nedenfor for at vælge hele filterteksten—herefter kan teksten kopieres.


    Her er yderligere en liste med søgeord og dertilhørende sensitivity og precision. Denne liste rammer meget bredt, men har også en del irrelevant med:

    TermSensitivityPrecision
    predict*48.236.4
    diagnos*80.716.8
    sensitiv*36.133.0
    accura*24.146.5
    screen*19.339.0
    specific*35.019.9
    test*49.413.7
    detect*32.518.1
    positiv*28.920.2
    negativ*20.520.0
    evaluat*27.711.6
    analy*38.67.7
    risk*22.912.8
    assess*24.111.6
    scor*13.317.2
    assay*13.316.7
    differen*28.97.5
    measure*25.37.6
    examin*20.58.4
    determ*22.97.4

    Til Medline (Ovid)

    1. 1. exp Diagnosis/
    2. exp “Sensitivity and Specificity”/
    3. exp Reference Values/
    4. exp False Positive Reactions/
    5. exp False Negative Reactions/
    6. exp Mass Screening/
    7. diagnos*.mp.
    8. sensitivity.mp.
    9. specificity.mp.
    10. predictive value*.mp.
    11. reference value*.mp.
    12. ROC*.mp.
    13. likelihood ratio*.mp.
    14. monitoring.mp.
    15. screening.mp.
    16. false positive.mp.
    17. false negative.mp.
    18. accuracy.mp.
    19. (predictive and value*).mp. [mp=title, abstract, original title, name of substance word, subject heading word, keyword heading word, protocol supplementary concept word, rare disease supplementary concept word, unique identifier]
    20. 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 or 7 or 8 or 9 or 10 or 11 or 12 or 13 or 14 or 15 or 16 or 17 or 18 or 19


    Til Embase (Ovid)

    1. 1. exp diagnosis/
    2. exp “sensitivity and specificity”/
    3. exp reference value/
    4. exp false positive result/
    5. exp false negative result/
    6. exp mass screening/
    7. diagnos*.mp.
    8. sensitivity.mp.
    9. specificity.mp.
    10. predictive value*.mp.
    11. reference value*.mp.
    12. ROC*.mp.
    13. likelihood ratio*.mp.
    14. monitoring.mp.
    15. screening.mp.
    16. false positive.mp.
    17. false negative.mp.
    18. accuracy.mp.
    19. (predictive and value*).mp. [mp=title, abstract, heading word, drug trade name, original title, device manufacturer, drug manufacturer, device trade name, keyword]
    20. 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 or 7 or 8 or 9 or 10 or 11 or 12 or 13 or 14 or 15 or 16 or 17 or 18 or 19


    Litteratur

    Beynon R, Leeflang MM, McDonald S, Eisinga A, Mitch ell RL, Whiting P, Gl anville JM. Search strategies to identify diagnostic accuracy studies in MEDLINE and EMBASE. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2013, Issue 9. Art. No.: MR000022. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.MR000022.pub3
    Lucas M. Bachmann, MD, Reto Coray, MD, Pius Estermann, MD, and Gerben ter Riet, MD, PhD. Identifying Diagnostic Studies in MEDLINE: Reducing the Number Needed to Read. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2002 Nov-Dec; 9(6): 653-658.

  • Dyrestudier

    Klik på tekstfeltet for at vælge hele filterteksten. Herefter kan teksten kopieres.


    de Vries RB1, Hooijmans CR, Tillema A, Leenaars M, Ritskes-Hoitinga M.
    Updated version of the Embase search filter for animal studies.
    Lab Anim. 2014 Jan;48(1):88. doi: 10.1177/0023677213494374. Epub 2013 Jul 8.

    de Vries RB, Hooijmans CR, Tillema A, Leenaars M, Ritskes-Hoitinga M.
    A search filter for increasing the retrieval of animal studies in Embase.
    Lab Anim. 2011 Oct;45(4):268-70. doi: 10.1258/la.2011.011056. Epub 2011 Sep 2.

    PubMed Filter

    Klik på tekstfeltet for at vælge hele filterteksten. Herefter kan teksten kopieres.


    Hooijmans CR1, Tillema A, Leenaars M, Ritskes-Hoitinga M.
    Enhancing search efficiency by means of a search filter for finding all studies on animal experimentation in PubMed.
    Lab Anim. 2010 Jul;44(3):170-5. doi: 10.1258/la.2010.009117. Epub 2010 Jun 15.

  • Humane Studier

    Cochrane Handbook indeholder filter til at afgrænse til humane studier i PubMed og Medline (Ovid).

    PubMed


    Medline (Ovid)


    Embase (Ovid)


    Litteratur

    Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from http://training.cochrane.org/handbook, Chapter 2, section 6.4.11.

  • Kvalitative Studier

    I nogle sammenhænge vil anvendelse af et helt simpelt, meget bredt filter bestående af qualitative, findings og interviews være lige så effektivt som et større, mere komplekst fri-tekst filter (Grant, 2000; Flemming & Briggs, 2007). Omvendt er der andre sammenhænge, hvor de to typer supplerer, men ikke erstatter hinanden (Shaw et al., 2004).

    Der findes tre typer af filtre til at søge efter kvalitative studier (Jenskins, 2004):

    1. subjektive filtre baseret på erfaring
    2. subjektive filtre, der testes
    3. objektivt udviklede filtre. På baggrund af ordfrekvens.

    Vi starter med den sidste type. Mange databaser tilbyder et filter til at afgrænse til kvalitative studier. Disse filtre er udviklet på baggrund af ordfrekvens i en række kvalitative artikler. Evidens for filtrene kan findes her:

    CINAHL: Wilcynski, Marks og Haynes (2007), EMBASE: Walters, Wilczynski, Haynes, & Hedges, Team (2006), MEDLINE: Wong, Wilczynski, Haynes & Hedges, Team. (2004) og PsycInfo: McKibbon, Wilczynski & Haynes (2006).

    Filtre med fokus på at genfinde så meget som muligt af den kvalitative forskning (høj recall):

    Embase filter: interview*.tw. OR qualitative.tw. OR exp health care organization

    PsycInfo filter: experience*.mp. OR interview*.tw. OR qualitative*.tw.

    PubMed filter: interview*[Title/Abstract] OR psychology[Subheading:noexp] OR health services administration[MeSH Term]

    Cinahl filter: ((MH “study design+” not MM “study design+”) or MH “attitude” or (MH “interviews+” not MM “interviews+”))

    Vi vender nu tilbage til de første to typer af filtre: nemlig de subjektive. Man kan også anvende et mere komplekst filter, der typisk er udviklet på baggrund af bibliotekarers erfaring og i nogle tilfælde testet efterfølgende. Her ses eksempler på filtre, du kan klippe-klistre direkte ind i databasens søgefelt.

    Cinahl

    Klik på tekstfeltet for at vælge hele filterteksten. Herefter kan teksten kopieres.


    Filtret er erfaringsbaseret og utestet: Cinahl-søgning.

    PubMed

    Klik på tekstfeltet for at vælge hele filterteksten. Herefter kan teksten kopieres.


    Filtret er erfaringsbaseret og utestet: PubMed-søgning.

    PsycInfo

    Klik på tekstfeltet for at vælge hele filterteksten. Herefter kan teksten kopieres.


    Filtret er erfaringsbaseret og utestet: Saini, Michael, & Shlonsky, Aron. (2012). Systematic synthesis of qualitative research. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Følgende version virker i APA:


    Der findes ikke mange tests af filtre. Nogle eksempler er Grant, 2000; Flemming & Briggs, 2007 og Shaw et al., 2004.

    Litteratur

    Flemming, K., & Briggs, M. (2007). Electronic searching to locate qualitative research: evaluation of three strategies. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 57(1), 95-100. doi: DOI 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2006.04083.x
    Grant, M. J. (2000). Searching for qualitative studies on the Medline database: The development of an optimal search strategy. Department of Information and Library Studies Aberystwyth, University of Wales.
    Jenkins, M. (2004). Evaluation of methodological search filters-a review. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 21(3), 148-163.
    McKibbon, K. A., Wilczynski, N. L., & Haynes, R. B. (2006). Developing optimal search strategies for retrieving qualitative studies in PsycINFO. Evaluation and the Health Professions, 29(4), 440-454.
    Saini, Michael, & Shlonsky, Aron. (2012). Systematic synthesis of qualitative research. New York: Oxford University Press.
    Shaw, R. L., Booth, A., Sutton, A. J., Miller, T., Smith, J. A., Young, B., . . . Dixon-Woods, M. (2004). Finding qualitative research: an evaluation of search strategies. BMC Med Res Methodol, 4, 5. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-4-5
    Walters, L. A., Wilczynski, N. L., Haynes, R. B., & Hedges, Team. (2006). Developing optimal search strategies for retrieving clinically relevant qualitative studies in EMBASE. Qualitative Health Research, 16(1), 162-168. doi: 10.1177/1049732305284027
    Wilczynski, N. L., Marks, S., & Haynes, R. B. (2007). Search strategies for identifying qualitative studies in CINAHL. Qualitative Health Research, 17(5), 705-710. doi: 10.1177/1049732306294515
    Wong, S. S., Wilczynski, N. L., Haynes, R. B., & Hedges, Team. (2004). Developing optimal search strategies for detecting clinically relevant qualitative studies in MEDLINE. Stud Health Technol Inform, 107(Pt 1), 311-316.

  • Observationelle Studier
    Observationelle / kohorte studier

    Liste af søgeord fra: Fraser, C., Murray, A., & Burr, J. (2006). Identifying observational studies of surgical interventions in MEDLINE and EMBASE. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 6, 41. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-6-41

    Candidate search terms til EMBASE:

    1. Case report/
    2. Clinical trial/
    3. Cohort analysis/
    4. Comparative study/
    5. Controlled study/
    6. Follow-up study/
    7. Major clinical study/
    8. Prospective study/
    9. Retrospective study/
    10. Treatment outcome/
    11. baseline
    12. case control$
    13. case series
    14. cases
    15. chang$
    16. cohort
    17. compar$ or compara$
    18. consecutive$
    19. evaluat$
    20. follow$
    21. non compara$ or noncompara$
    22. non random$ or nonrandom$
    23. observational
    24. postoperat$ or post operat$
    25. preoperat$ or pre operat$
    26. prospective$
    27. retrospective$
    28. reviewed
    29. cohort$
    30. compare$ or compara$
    31. follow$
    32. prospective$
    33. retrospective$
    34. postoperat$ or post operat$
    35. preoperat$ or pre operat$

    Candidate search terms til MEDLINE:

    1. Case-control studies/
    2. Cohort studies/
    3. Comparative studies/
    4. Follow-up studies/
    5. Prospective studies/
    6. Retrospective studies/
    7. Time factors/
    8. Treatment outcome/
    9. Case reports.pt
    10. Clinical trial.pt
    11. Evaluation studies.pt
    12. baseline
    13. case control$
    14. case series
    15. cases
    16. chang$
    17. cohort
    18. compare$ or compara$
    19. consecutive$
    20. evaluat$
    21. follow$
    22. non compara$ or noncompara$
    23. non random$ or nonrandom$
    24. observational
    25. post operat$ or postoperat$
    26. pre operat$ or preoperat$
    27. prospective$
    28. retrospective$
    29. reviewed
    30. case control
    31. cohort
    32. compare$ or compara$
    33. follow$
    34. prospective$
    35. retrospective$
    36. postoperat$ or post operat$
    37. preoperat$ or pre operat$
    Filtre udviklet af SIGN

    EMBASE:

    1. Clinical study/
    2. Case control study
    3. Family study/
    4. Longitudinal study/
    5. Retrospective study/
    6. Prospective study/
    7. Randomized controlled trials/
    8. 6 not 7
    9. Cohort analysis/
    10. (Cohort adj (study or studies)).mp.
    11. (Case control adj (study or studies)).tw.
    12. (follow up adj (study or studies)).tw.
    13. (observational adj (study or studies)).tw.
    14. (epidemiologic$ adj (study or studies)).tw.
    15. (cross sectional adj (study or studies)).tw.
    16. Or/1-5,8-15

    MEDLINE:

    1. Clinical study/
    2. Case control study
    3. Family study/
    4. Longitudinal study/
    5. Retrospective study/
    6. Prospective study/
    7. Randomized controlled trials/
    8. 6 not 7
    9. Cohort analysis/
    10. (Cohort adj (study or studies)).mp.
    11. (Case control adj (study or studies)).tw.
    12. (follow up adj (study or studies)).tw.
    13. (observational adj (study or studies)).tw.
    14. (epidemiologic$ adj (study or studies)).tw.
    15. (cross sectional adj (study or studies)).tw.
    16. Or/1-5,8-15

    CINAHL:

    1. Prospective studies/
    2. Exp case control studies/
    3. Correlational studies/
    4. Nonconcurrent prospective studies/
    5. Cross sectional studies/
    6. (cohort adj (study or studies)).tw.
    7. (observational adj (study or studies)).tw.
    8. or/1-7
    Kohortestudiestrategi

    EMBASE:

    1. exp cohort analysis/
    2. exp longitudinal study/
    3. exp prospective study/
    4. exp follow up/
    5. cohort$.tw.
    6. or/1-5

    MEDLINE:

    1. exp cohort studies/
    2. cohort$.tw.
    3. controlled clinical trial.pt.
    4. epidemiologic methods/
    5. limit 4 to yr=1971-1988
    6. or/1-3,5
    Kohorte- og case-control strategi

    EMBASE:

    1. exp cohort analysis/
    2. exp longitudinal study/
    3. exp prospective study/
    4. exp follow up/
    5. cohort$.tw.
    6. exp case control study/
    7. (case$ and control$).tw.
    8. or/1-7

    MEDLINE:

    1. exp cohort studies/
    2. cohort$.tw.
    3. controlled clinical trial.pt.
    4. epidemiologic methods/
    5. limit 4 to yr=1966-1989
    6. exp case-control studies/
    7. (case$ and control$).tw.
    8. or/1-3,5-7
    Kohorte-, case-control og case series strategi

    EMBASE:

    1. exp cohort analysis/
    2. exp longitudinal study/
    3. exp prospective study/
    4. exp follow up/
    5. cohort$.tw.
    6. exp case control study/
    7. (case$ and control$).tw.
    8. exp case study/
    9. (case$ and series).tw.
    10. or/1-9

    MEDLINE:

    1. exp cohort studies/
    2. cohort$.tw.
    3. controlled clinical trial.pt.
    4. epidemiologic methods/
    5. limit 4 to yr=1966-1989
    6. exp case-control studies/
    7. (case$ and control$).tw.
    8. (case$ and series).tw.
    9. or/1-3,5-8
    Kohorte-, case-control, case series og case-studie strategi

    EMBASE:

    1. exp cohort analysis/
    2. exp longitudinal study/
    3. exp prospective study/
    4. exp follow up/
    5. cohort$.tw.
    6. exp case control study/
    7. (case$ and control$).tw.
    8. exp case study/
    9. (case$ and series).tw.
    10. case report/
    11. (case$ adj2 report$).tw.
    12. (case$ adj2 stud$).tw.
    13. or/1-12

    MEDLINE:

    1. exp cohort studies/
    2. cohort$.tw.
    3. controlled clinical trial.pt.
    4. epidemiologic methods/
    5. limit 4 to yr=1966-1989
    6. exp case-control studies/
    7. (case$ and control$).tw.
    8. (case$ and series).tw.
    9. case reports.pt.
    10. (case$ adj2 report$).tw.
    11. (case$ adj2 stud$).tw.
    12. or/1-3,5-11
  • RCT’er

    Filtre med højest recall (og sensitivity over 80). Her er de 11 bedste skrevet sammen til et filter til Medline og derefter også tilpasset Embase og PubMed.

    PubMed

    Klik på tekstfeltet nedenfor for at vælge hele filterteksten. Herefter kan teksten kopieres.


    MEDLINE (Ovid)

    1. ((singl* or doubl* or treb* or tripl*) adj (blind$3 or mask$3)).tw.
    2. (allocated adj2 random).tw.
    3. (clin* adj25 trial*).ti, ab.
    4. (clinic* adj trial$1).tw.
    5. (double-blind* or random*).af.
    6. clinical trial.pt.
    7. clinical trials as topic.sh.
    8. controlled clinical trial.pt.
    9. double blind method.sh.
    10. single blind method.sh.
    11. double-blind method.sh.
    12. single-blind method.sh.
    13. drug therapy.fs.
    14. exp clinical trials as topic
    15. exp research design
    16. placebo*.tw.
    17. placebos.sh.
    18. practice guideline.pt.
    19. random allocation.sh.
    20. random*.tw.
    21. Random.af
    22. randomized controlled trial.pt
    23. randomized controlled trials as topic.sh
    24. randomized.ab.
    25. randomly allocated.tw.
    26. randomly.ab.
    27. single-blind method.sh.
    28. trial.ab.
    29. trial.ti.
    30. 1 OR 2 OR 3 OR 4 OR 5 OR 6 OR 7 OR 8 OR 9 OR 10 OR 11 OR 12 OR 13 OR 14 OR 15 OR 16 OR 17 OR 18 OR 19 OR 20 OR 21 OR 22 OR 23 OR 24 OR 25 OR 26 OR 27 OR 28 OR 29
    31. case report. tw.
    32. letter.pt.
    33. historical article.pt.
    34. review of reported cases.pt
    35. review, multicase.pt.
    36. 31 OR 32 OR 33 OR 34 OR 35
    37. 30 NOT 36

    Klik på tekstfeltet nedenfor for at vælge hele filterteksten. Herefter kan teksten kopieres.


    EMBASE (Ovid)

    1. ((singl* or doubl* or treb* or tripl*) adj (blind*3 or mask$3)).tw.
    2. (allocated adj2 random).tw.
    3. (clin* adj25 trial*).ti,ab.
    4. (clinic: adj trial$1).tw.
    5. (double-blind* or random*).af.
    6. exp “clinical trial (topic)”/
    7. exp double blind procedure/
    8. exp single blind procedure/
    9. exp triple blind procedure/
    10. placebo*.tw.
    11. exp placebo/
    12. exp randomization/
    13. Random.af.
    14. Random*.tw.
    15. exp “randomized controlled trial (topic)”/
    16. randomized.ab.
    17. randomly allocated.tw.
    18. randomly.ab.
    19. trial.ab.
    20. trial.ti.
    21. exp “controlled clinical trial (topic)”/
    22. randomized controlled trial/
    23. “randomized controlled trial (topic)”/
    24. exp controlled clinical trial/

    Klik på tekstfeltet nedenfor for at vælge hele filterteksten. Herefter kan teksten kopieres.


    Uddrag fra McKibbon, K. A., Wilczynski, N. L., & Haynes, R. B. (2009).
    Retrieving randomized controlled trials from medline: a comparison of 38 published search filters.

  • Reviews

    Filtre udarbejdet på baggrund af følgende artikel: Lee, E., Dobbins, M., Decorby, K., McRae, L., Tirilis, D., & Husson, H. (2012). An optimal search filter for retrieving systematic reviews and meta-analyses. BMC Med Res Methodol, 12, 51.

    De filtre med højest recall (dog undtaget filtre med specificity under 80) er anvendt. Medregnes standardafvigelsen vil der være filtre, der ikke entydigt kan udpeges som bedre end andre og i de tilfælde skrives to-tre filtre sammen til et stort filter med højest muligt recall for øje.

    MEDLINE via Ovid: De fire bedste filtre (målt på recall 99-99,5 og specificity 87-89) er sammensat til følgende filter:

    1. meta-analysis/
    2. review literature/
    3. review.ab.
    4. review.pt.
    5. review.ti.
    6. meta-analysis.mp,pt.
    7. meta-analy$.tw.
    8. metaanal$.tw.
    9. (systematic$ adj4 (review$ or overview$))
    10. review literature.pt.
    11. search:.tw.
    12. or/1-11
    13. case report/
    14. letter.pt.
    15. historical article.pt.
    16. review of reported cases.pt.
    17. review,multicase.pt.
    18. letter.pt.
    19. comment.pt.
    20. editorial.pt.
    21. or/13-20
    22. 12 not 21

    Klik på tekstfeltet nedenfor for at vælge hele filterteksten. Herefter kan teksten kopieres.


    PubMed:

    Klik på tekstfeltet nedenfor for at vælge hele filterteksten. Herefter kan teksten kopieres.


    EMBASE (via Ovid): De to bedste filtre (målt på recall 88-96 og specificity 86-98) er sammensat til følgende filter:

    1. search:.tw.
    2. review.pt.
    3. meta-analy:.mp.
    4. MEDLINE.tw.
    5. exp systematic review/ or systematic review.tw
    6. meta-analysis/
    7. intervention$.ti
    8. or/1-7

    Klik på tekstfeltet nedenfor for at vælge hele filterteksten. Herefter kan teksten kopieres.


    CINAHL (via Ovid): de to bedste filtre (målt på recall 96-98 og specificity 94-95) er sammensat til følgende filter:

    1. meta-analysis.mp.
    2. review.pt.
    3. meta analysis/
    4. systematic review/
    5. systematic review.pt.
    6. (metaanaly$ or meta-analy$).tw.
    7. metanal$
    8. nursing interventions.pt.
    9. (review$ or overview$).ti.
    10. literature review/
    11. exp literature searching/
    12. cochrane$.tw.
    13. synthes$.tw. adj3 (literature$ or research$ or studies or data).tw.
    14. (MEDLINE or medlars or embase or scisearch or psycinfo or psychinfo or psyclit or psychlit).tw,sh.
    15. pooled analy$.tw.
    16. ((data adj2 pool$) and studies).tw.
    17. ((hand or manual$ or database$ or computer$) adj2 search$).tw.
    18. reference databases/
    19. ((electronic$ or bibliographic$) adj2 (database$ or data base$)).tw.
    20. (review or systematic-review or practice-guidelines).pt.
    21. (review$ or overview$).ab.
    22. (systematic$ or methodologic$ or quantitativ$ or research$ or literature$ or studies or trial$ or effective$).ab.
    23. 20 and 22
    24. 21 adj10 22
    25. or/1-19,23,24
    26. editorial.pt.
    27. letter.pt.
    28. case study.pt.
    29. record review/
    30. peer review/
    31. (retrospective$ adj2 review$).tw.
    32. (case$ adj2 review$).tw.
    33. (record$ adj2 review$).tw.
    34. (patient$ adj2 review$).tw.
    35. (patient$ adj2 chart$).tw.
    36. (peer adj2 review$).tw.
    37. (chart$ adj2 review$).tw.
    38. (case$ adj2 report$).tw.
    39. exp case control studies/
    40. exp prospective studies/
    41. case studies/
    42. animal studies/
    43. “edit and review”/
    44. (rat$ or mouse or mice or hamster$ or animal$ or dog$ or cat$ or rabbit$ or bovine or sheep).tw.
    45. or/26-44
    46. 25 not 45

    CINAHL (via Ebsco):

    Klik på tekstfeltet nedenfor for at vælge hele filterteksten. Herefter kan teksten kopieres.


  • Patientens oplevelse/vurdering

    Følgende filtre er testet og de finder følgende sensitivitet samt præcision (%): 90.5/77(MEDLINE-Ovid), 90.1/79.3(PubMed), and 93.1/81.8 (Embase).

    Monique Wessels, MSc; Lian Hielkema, BA; Trudy van der Weijden, MD, PhD.
    How to identify existing literature on patients’ knowledge, views, and
    values: the development of a validated search filter.
    Journal of the Medical Library Association: JMLA 2016 oct;104(4)320-324.

    MEDLINE (Ovid):

    1. exp Consumer Participation/ or “Patient Acceptance of Health Care”/ or exp Attitude to Health/ or *exp consumer satisfaction/ or patient preference/ or cooperative behavior/ or exp self efficacy/ or self-efficacy.ti,ab. or exp Adaptation, Psychological/ or exp health education/ or patient education as topic/ or exp attitude to health/ or health knowledge, attitudes, practice/ or *”Quality of Life”/ or “Quality of Life”/px or Personal Autonomy/ or self concept/ or consumer advocacy/ or freedom/ or Needs Assessment/ or Patient Advocacy/ or Self-Help Groups/ or Life Change Events/ or Attitude to Death/ or Patient-Centered Care/ or exp Professional-Patient Relations/ or Self Care/ or focus groups/ or narration/

    2. (((patient or consumer*) adj3 (participat* or decisi* or decid*)) or patient-focused or (patientcentred or patient-centered) or (patient adj3 (attitude? or preference))).ti,ab. or “patient satisfaction”.ti. or coping.ti,ab. or (“self perception” or “self concept”).ti,ab. or self-efficacy.ti,ab. or (“informed choice” or “shared decision making”).ti,ab. or empowerment.ti,ab. or (“focus group*” adj3 (patient* or parent* or famil* or spouse*)).ti,ab. or (QoL or “Quality of life”).ti. or self-management.ti. or ((patient* or consumer* or parent* or famil* or spouse*) adj (attitude* or involvement or desir* or perspective* or activation or view* or preference*)).ti,ab. or “expert patient*”.ti,ab. or “focus group*”.ti,ab. or qualitative.ti.

    3. (exp Decision Making/ or exp Communication/ or Stress, Psychological/ or Emotions/ or vignette*.ti,ab.) and (exp Patients/px or patient*.ti. or consumer*.ti.)

    4. 1 or 2 or 3

    MEDLINE (PubMed):

    Klik på tekstfeltet nedenfor for at vælge hele filterteksten. Herefter kan teksten kopieres.


    Embase (Elsevier):

    Klik på tekstfeltet nedenfor for at vælge hele filterteksten. Herefter kan teksten kopieres.


    Dette filter er udelukkende udviklet til PubMed. Recall er på cirka 86% og precision er lav, men listen over søgeord kan eventuelt bruges som inspiration.

    Selva, A., Solà, I., Zhang, Y., Pardo-Hernandez, H., Haynes, R. B., Martínez García, L., … Alonso-Coello, P. (2017).
    Development and use of a content search strategy for retrieving studies on patients’ views and preferences. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes.
    15, 126. http://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-017-0698-5.

    Patient Preferences and Decision-making Domain:

    1. “Attitude to Health” [MAJR]
    2. “Patient Participation”[MAJR]
    3. “Patient Preference”[MAJR]
    4. preference*[tiab]
    5. choice[ti]
    6. choices[ti]
    7. value*[ti]
    8. health state values[tiab]
    9. valuation*[ti]
    10. expectation*[tiab]
    11. attitude*[tiab]
    12. acceptab*[tiab]
    13. knowledge[tiab]
    14. point of view[tiab]
    15. user participation[tiab]
    16. users participation[tiab]
    17. users’ participation[tiab]
    18. user’s participation[tiab]
    19. patient participation[tiab]
    20. patients participation[tiab]
    21. patients’ participation[tiab]
    22. patient’s participation[tiab]
    23. patient perspective*[tiab]
    24. patients perspective*[tiab]
    25. patients’ perspective*[tiab]
    26. patient’s perspective*[tiab]
    27. user perspective*[tiab]
    28. users perspective*[tiab]
    29. users’ perspective*[tiab]
    30. user’s perspective*[tiab]
    31. patient perce*[tiab]
    32. patients perce*[tiab]
    33. patients’ perce*[tiab]
    34. patient’s perce*[tiab]
    35. health perception*[tiab]
    36. user perce*[tiab]
    37. users perce*[tiab]
    38. users’ perce*[tiab]
    39. user’s perce*[tiab]
    40. user view*[tiab]
    41. users view*[tiab]
    42. users’ view*[tiab]
    43. user’s view*[tiab]
    44. patient view*[tiab]
    45. patients view*[tiab]
    46. patients’ view*[tiab]
    47. patient’s view*[tiab]
    48. ((decision*[ti] AND mak*[ti]) OR decision mak*[tiab] OR decisions mak*[tiab]) AND (patient*[tiab] OR user*[tiab] OR men[tiab] OR women[tiab])
    49. discrete choice*[tiab]
    50. decision board*[tiab]
    51. decision analy*[tiab]
    52. decision-support*[tiab]
    53. decision tool*[tiab]
    54. decision aid*[tiab]
    55. discrete-choice*[tiab]
    56. “Decision Making”[MAJR] AND (patient*[ti] OR user*[ti] OR men[ti] OR women[ti])

    Health state utility values domain:

    1. “Decision Support Techniques”[MeSH]
    2. health[ti] AND utilit*[ti]
    3. gamble*[tiab]
    4. prospect theory[tiab]
    5. preference score[tiab]
    6. preference eliciation[tiab]
    7. health utilit*[tiab]
    8. utility value*[tiab]
    9. utility score*[tiab]
    10. Utility estimate*[tiab]
    11. health state[tiab]
    12. feeling thermometer*[tiab]
    13. best-worst scaling[tiab]
    14. standard gamle[tiab]
    15. time trade-off[tiab]
    16. TTO[tiab]
    17. probability trade-off[tiab]
    18. utility score
    19. preference based[tiab]
    20. preference score*[tiab]
    21. best-worst scaling[tiab]
    22. multiattribute[tiab]
    23. multi attribute[tiab]
    24. EuroQol 5D[tiab]
    25. EuroQol5D[tiab]
    26. EQ5D [tiab]
    27. EQ 5D [tiab]
    28. SF6D [tiab]
    29. SF 6D [tiab]
    30. HUI [tiab]
    31. 15D [tiab]