Quality and retrieval of obstetrical anaesthesia randomized controlled trials. Quality assessment of reports on clinical trials in the Journal of Hepatology. How easy are randomized controlled trials in epilepsy to find on Medline? The sensitivity and precision of two Medline searches. An investigation of the adequacy of MEDLINE searches for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of the effects of mental health care. Identification of randomized controlled trials from the emergency medicine literature: comparison of hand searching versus MEDLINE searching. The retrieval of randomized clinical trials in liver diseases from the medical literature: manual versus MEDLARS searches. Prevalence study of the randomized controlled trials in the Journal of Intellectual Disability Research: 1957-1994. The retrieval of randomized clinical trials in liver disease from the medical literature. A comparison of MEDLARS and manual methods. Identifying clinical trials in the medical literature with electronic databases: MEDLINE alone is not enough. Forty years of randomised trials in the New Zealand Medical Journal. [The identification and description of clinical trials published in Spanish journals of general and internal medicine during the period of 1971-1995]. Searching the literature. Be systematic in your searching. A comparison of handsearching versus MEDLINE searching to identify reports of randomized controlled trials. Handsearching the Journal of the Royal Army Medical Corps for trials. A two-term MEDLINE search strategy for identifying randomized trials in obstetrics and gynecology. Searching MEDLINE for randomized clinical trials involving care of the newborn. The quest for trials on the efficacy of human vaccines. Results of the handsearch of Vaccine. Randomized controlled trials in surgery. Identifying randomized controlled trials of cognitive therapy for depression: comparing the efficiency of Embase, Medline and PsycINFO bibliographic databases. Accessing the literature on outcome studies in group psychotherapy: the sensitivity and precision of Medline and PsycINFO bibliographic database searching. Identification and analysis of randomised controlled trials in nursing: a preliminary study. Developing a database of published reports of randomised clinical trials in pain research. Handsearching the Journal of the Royal Naval Medical Service for Trials.
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are suitable for meta-analysis and systematic reviews provided they are of high quality and are easy to retrieve. We determined these attributes of RCTs in obstetrical anaesthesia in a sample of available journals that are indexed in MEDLINE.
                Randomized controlled trials published between January 1985 and December 1994 in seven anaesthetic and three obstetric journals were identified by a MEDLINE search, and by handsearch of the same journals. Each RCT was assigned a quality score by a blinded rater using a reliable and validated scaled. The quality of each RCT was described and compared over time and by journal. The comparative yield of MEDLINE and hand-search was evaluated.
                Three hundred and forty RCTs were retrieved by MEDLINE and handsearch. Two hundred and twenty seven (65%) were identified by the MEDLINE search and 333 by the handsearch (98%). The median quality score was 3/5. There was no difference in score over time. Anesthesiology had the highest median score, Anaesthesia had the lowest (P < 0.05).
                Care must be taken when reviewing obstetrical anaesthesia research. Strategies in addition to a MEDLINE search must be used to identify RCTs since more than one third were missed using MEDLINE alone. Poor quality RCTs are more likely to be biased in favour of a new treatment. Therefore, to increase the validity of reviews sensitivity analyses based on quality should be done. Electronic searches on databases for randomised clinical trials and controlled clinical trials do not identify as many trials as handsearches, and trial reporting may be flawed. The aims were to identify all fully reported randomised clinical trials in the Journal of Hepatology and to make a qualitative assessment of the reporting.
                The publications were identified by systematically handsearching the full text of the journal and searching MEDLINE. Central dimensions of trial quality were used to assess the reporting quality of the trials.
                Randomised clinical trials represented 8.4% of the original articles (171/2028). Ten original articles (0.5%) could not be classified. A search on MEDLINE identified 81.3% of the randomised clinical trials, i.e., 139 out of the 171 identified by the handsearch. A total of 166 randomised clinical trials could be quality assessed. Forty-seven (28.3%) of them reported adequate generation of allocation sequence; 22 (13.3%) adequate allocation concealment; 95 (57.2%) allowed intention-to-treat analysis with only a few losses to follow-up; 50 (30.1%) were double-blind; 33 (19.9%) reported sample-size calculations; 13 trials (7.8%) employed the crossover design; and the median number of subjects per intervention arm in parallel group trials was 19 subjects (interquartile range: 11-31; range: 5-519). The quality of reporting was significantly better in regular issue articles than in supplement articles.
                Many important randomised clinical trials are published in the Journal of Hepatology, but there seems to be ample room for improvement of quality of reporting. Recognition of the need for more scientifically acceptable review strategies is increasing. Systematic reviews have rarely been performed on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the field of epilepsy. We have 355 published RCTs on a database, which will be used as a data source from systematic reviews. We wished to test the sensitivity and precision of two Medline search strategies, and to identify reasons why RCTs were missed. Both a basic and a comprehensive search strategy were used to search Medline from 1966 to 1993. Three journals (Epilepsia, Epilepsy Research, Acta Neurological Scandinavica) were searched by hand. The sensitivity and precision of these Medline search strategies in these three journals was calculated. We investigated articles missed by our comprehensive search to ascertain why they had been missed. Of the 308 RCTs on the database published between 1966 and 1993, 275 were found by our comprehensive Medline search, whereas 103 were found by our basic search. The overall precision of our comprehensive and basic searches was 35 and 72%, respectively. The overall sensitivity of our comprehensive and basic searches was 86 and 66%, respectively. Our comprehensive search failed to find 16 RCTs published in the three journals searched by hand. Articles were missed because they were inadequately indexed on Medline and/or did not contain adequate methodological information in their titles or abstracts. To find all relevant trials, a search strategy must be as sensitive as possible, but this sensitivity inevitably involves loss of precision. The National Library of Medicine is addressing indexing problems with Medline, but the quality of reports also must be improved to enhance retrieval. Valid reviews of the effects of mental health care depend on identifying as high a proportion as possible of relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs). To investigate the sensitivity and precision both of MEDLINE and of hand-searching for RCTs in mental health, 12 journals specializing in mental health and indexed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) for MEDLINE were searched for the years 1971, 1976, 1981, 1986 and 1991. The sensitivity of the hand-search was 94% (95% Confidence Interval (CI) 93-95%), but it had a precision of only 7% (CI 6-8%). The optimal MEDLINE search had a sensitivity of only 52% (CI 48-56%) and a precision of 59% (CI 55-63%). Of the reports of RCTs identified by the hand-search, 9% (CI 7-11%) were not included in MEDLINE at all. Authors had included methodological descriptions in 84% (CI 80-88%) of RCTs found by the hand-search but missed by the MEDLINE search. Systematic reviews of mental health care which are based solely on MEDLINE searches of the literature will miss a large proportion of the relevant RCTs, and are thus liable to random error and bias. A register of mental health RCTs is urgently required. As part of an ongoing project to identify all the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the emergency medicine literature, in association with the Cochrane Collaboration, 2 discrete studies were undertaken; the first, to compare motives for active participation in hand searching of the literature by emergency medicine professionals, and the second, to compare hand searching with MEDLINE searching of a number of emergency medicine journals.
                All listed members of the British Association for Emergency Medicine (BAEM) and the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM) received a standard letter outlining the objectives of the project, with 1 of 3 headings assigned on an alternate basis. Recruited volunteers hand searched journals prioritized from the emergency medicine literature. Each issue of each journal was hand searched for RCTs. In addition, a comprehensive MEDLINE search was conducted for each journal. The yields of RCTs from the 2 searching methods were compared for all journals and for each journal individually.
                No clear motivation for participation in this work could be ascertained because of the low response rates from BAEM and SAEM (10.1% and 1.8%, respectively). Only 18 (29.0%) of the 62 journals identified were indexed by MEDLINE. In the 14 journals indexed by MEDLINE for which hand searching was completed, a total of 710 RCTs were identified by a combination of the 2 approaches; of these, 592 (83.4%) were identified by hand searching alone and 483 (68.0%) by MEDLINE searching alone. Both methods identified 365 (51. 4%) RCTs; hand searching revealed an additional 227 (32.0%) that were not identified by MEDLINE searching, and MEDLINE searching found 118 (16.6%) that were not identified by hand searching. The difference between the proportions identified by hand searching and by MEDLINE searching (15.4%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 12.7% to 17.9%) was statistically significant (McNemar's chi2 test, 1 df, 33. 8; P <.0001). This difference was not significant for 8 of the journals.
                The response rates from mailing to members of the relevant professional organizations letters requesting participation in this work were very low and suggested that such an approach was not cost-effective. However, no formal costing exercise was undertaken. Searching results showed that, in the 14 emergency medicine journals indexed by MEDLINE for which hand searching was completed, hand searching led to identification of additional RCTs (primary articles) not found through MEDLINE searching. However, hand searching, although statistically significantly better than MEDLINE searching, failed to identify some of the RCTs found by MEDLINE searching, suggesting that hand searching is not a "gold standard" method and that the dual approach, promoted by the Cochrane Collaboration, may be the optimal approach for journals indexed by MEDLINE. Recently, the usefulness of MEDLARS computer searches in biomedical research was questioned; the conclusion was drawn that to completely capture a specific population of articles, the MEDLARS system was inadequate. This conclusion was based on a comparison of MEDLARS and manual searches for articles on random clinical trials in liver disease for the period 1966-1982. The present study re-evaluated the validity of this conclusion. In the initial revised search strategy, the recall of valid articles was not significantly improved, as compared with the original MEDLARS search strategy, but precision of this revised search was significantly increased. The number of valid articles recalled was significantly increased by broadening the MEDLARS search strategy criteria, but not without a simultaneous and significant decrease in precision. A limiting capture rate of about 79% of the population of articles on random clinical trials was reached when all logical expansions of the search strategy were exhausted. Strategies for increasing the efficiency of MEDLARS searches in general are discussed citing limitations specific to the population of random clinical trial articles. Systematic reviews of care are increasingly potent guides to clinical practice, and it is important that all relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are identified by those within the speciality of learning disability who produce such works. All RCTs in the Journal of Intellectual Disability Research and its predecessor were identified by hand-searching (1957-1994), and the frequency, origin, intervention and quality of reporting of randomization were described. Electronic searches for the trials were undertaken for the years 1974-1994, and the quality of indexing was inspected and tested. These electronic searches were then compared to a 'gold standard' search. Fifty-six RCTs were identified. None contained the world 'randomized' in the title and only nine mentioned it in the abstract. Out of the 37 RCTs published between 1974 and 1994, 36 are in PsycLIT and 37 in MEDLINE. One MEDLINE record contained the wrong abstract. The methodological phrases used in the electronic records were poor, and thus, the precision of electronic searches, using both databases, was low. This international journal contains many relevant RCTs from around the world, involving several types of interventions. Unfortunately, these trials cannot be readily accessed electronically using methodological phrases designed to find RCTs. Improved quality of indexing would facilitate identification of RCTs and their dissemination. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) provide the most reliable therapeutic information available. Unfortunately, there are no systemic listing of RCTs. We compared a MEDLARS search of 3686 biomedical journals for RCTs with a manual search of the medical literature for the period 1966-1982. For the former search we used subject headings (1) liver disease or (2) biliary tract disease and subheadings (1) drug therapy, (2) surgery, (3) radiotherapy, or (4) therapy, and check tags (1) comparative study or (2) clinical research. For the manual search, the contents of 34 arbitrarily selected, gastroenterologic, hepatologic, surgical, or general journals were perused. The MEDLARS search identified 160 RCTs and 29 others were found in the references of the 160. One hundred fifty-four RCTs were identified by both methods. The manual search identified 208 RCTs and an additional 34 were found in the references of the 208. The MEDLARS search identified only 107 of 208 RCTs found in the references of the 208. The MEDLARS search identified only 107 of 208 RCTs found manually in the 36 journals, an efficiency rate of 51%. We estimate that 330 hepatobiliary RCTs had been published during this 17-year period. Sixty percent of the RCTs found by MEDLARS used the key word "randomized," "double blind," or "controlled" in the title, compared to 36% in those found by the manual search. In order to retrieve RCTs, it is essential that editors require that RCTs be identified in their titles or key words by specific terms such as "controlled," "randomized," and "double blind," that papers be so catalogued and indexed, and that searchers be instructed in appropriate search strategies. The objective of this study was to compare the performance of MEDLINE and EMBASE for the identification of articles regarding controlled clinical trials (CCTs) published in English and related to selected topics: rheumatoid arthritis (RA), osteoporosis (OP), and low back pain (LBP). MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched for literature published in 1988 and 1994. The initial selection of papers was then reviewed to confirm that the articles were about CCTs and to assess the quality of the studies. Selected journals were also hand searched to identify CCTs not retrieved by either database. Overall, 4111 different references were retrieved (2253 for RA, 978 for OP, and 880 for LBP); 3418 (83%) of the papers were in English. EMBASE retrieved 78% more references than MEDLINE (2895 versus 1625). Overall, 1217 (30%) of the papers were retrieved by both databases. Two hundred forty-three papers were about CCTs. Two-thirds of these were retrieved by both databases, and one-third by only one. An additional 16 CCTs not retrieved by either database were identified through hand searching. Taking these into account, EMBASE retrieved 16% more CCTs than MEDLINE (220 versus 188); the EMBASE search identified 85% of the CCTs compared to 73% by MEDLINE. No significant differences were observed in the mean quality scores and sample size of the CCTs missed by MEDLINE compared to those missed by EMBASE. Our findings suggest that the use of MEDLINE alone to identify CCTs is inadequate. The use of two or more databases and hand searching of selected journals are needed to perform a comprehensive search. To identify all randomised trials published in the New Zealand Medical Journal, to document the basic characteristics of these trials and to count the number that were detectable on medline.
                All issues of the New Zealand Medical Journal between 1943 and 1995 were systematically hand-searched. All trials identified were characterised and compared against the trials identified using an optimal medline search strategy.
                The handsearch identified 152 randomised controlled trials, the first published in 1955. Half the trials recruited less than 34 participants and more than 90% were of pharmaceutical interventions. Only 18% of studies reported on the method of randomisation and 13% provided evidence that final analyses were conducted on an intention to treat basis. Fifty one percent of trials employed a placebo control group and 28% involved a crossover design. Since 1966, when Medline became available, 143 trials were published of which 89 (62%) were identified by the Medline search.
                Two of the major difficulties that face those preparing systematic reviews were illustrated by this survey. First, important information on design and analysis is often missing from reports of trials. Second, a large proportion of published randomised trials are not identifiable on Medline. Standard formats for reporting the results of trials and inclusion of trials identified by hand-searching on the Cochrane Collaboration's International Register of Randomised Controlled Trials of Health Care will facilitate the future production of reliable systematic reviews. When faced with a therapeutic issue, the practice of evidence-based medicine requires efficient access to information derived from controlled clinical trials. The objectives of the study were to locate, with the greatest possible exhaustivity, all controlled clinical trials published in Spanish journals of general medicine, between 1971 and 1995 (25 years), to characterize them, and to incorporate them into the worldwide database of clinical trials maintained by the Cochrane Collaboration.
                The controlled clinical trials have been identified by a systematic, manual review of all the Spanish journals of general and internal medicine. The results obtained have been compared with an exclusive electronic search in MEDLINE. A descriptive analysis of the characteristics of the localized controlled clinical trials was done.
                68 journals of general and internal medicine have been identified, only 6 being indexed in MEDLINE. A search carried out exclusively using MEDLINE would imply the loss of one third of all controlled clinical trials. About 16 controlled clinical trials per year have been published in Spain in the area of general and internal medicine, most of them with important missing information.
                The limitations of searching only in MEDLINE have been shown once again. There are few controlled clinical trials published in Spain in the area of general and internal medicine, and in order to improve their quality and their diffusion is recommended that authors and editors adhered to the international consensus initiatives that are under way. nan This study aims to compare handsearching to a basic MEDLINE search for the identification of reports of randomized trials in specialized health care journals. Twenty-two specialized health care journals, published in the U.K., were handsearched for all reports of controlled trials (as defined by the Cochrane Collaboration). The reports of trials, which were judged to be definitely randomized, were identified from a random sample of three years per journal and form one element of this study. A MEDLINE search using the publication type terms 'randomized controlled trial' and 'controlled clinical trial' was also performed for the same journal years. The reports of trials retrieved by handsearching were then compared against those retrieved from the MEDLINE search, to identify differences in retrieval between the two techniques. Reports of randomized trials identified by the MEDLINE search but not found by handsearching were individually assessed to see if they met the Cochrane eligibility criteria for a report of a randomized trial. A total of 714 reports of randomized trials were found by using a combination of both handsearching and MEDLINE searching. Of these, 369 (52 per cent) were identified only by handsearching and 32 (4 per cent) were identified only by MEDLINE searching. Of the reports identified only by handsearching, 252 had no MEDLINE record, of which 232 (92 per cent) were meeting abstracts or published in supplements; 117 (25 per cent) of the 462 reports of randomized trials which had a MEDLINE record were missed by the electronic search because they did not have either of the publication type terms 'randomized controlled trial' or 'controlled clinical trial'. This proportion varied depending on when the reports of randomized trials were published (that is, before or after the introduction of the MEDLINE publication type terms above). The highest additional yield from handsearching compared to MEDLINE searching was for reports of randomized trials published prior to 1991 and from handsearching the non-MEDLINE indexed parts of a journal. The results of this study suggest that a combination of MEDLINE and handsearching is required to identify adequately reports of randomized trials.
                Copyright Crown copyright 2002. Reproduced with the permission of Her Majesty's Stationery Office. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. As part of the Cochrane Collaboration's international research endeavour, the authors carried out a handsearch of the RAMC Journal from 1948 to 1998, searching for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs). Ten trials were identified, of which 6 were RCTs and 4 were CCTs. The first trial was published in 1967. Four of the 10 identified trials were in the field of respiratory medicine, and 2 were in obstetrics and gynaecology. Of the 10 trials, only 3 had been found through a rigorous interrogation of Medline. The 7 newly identified trials were reported to the UK Cochrane Centre, and summary details of these trials were entered into Medline for use by clinicians and investigators in the future. To develop and test a simple MEDLINE search strategy for identification of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in obstetrics and gynecology.
                To develop our search strategy, we asked clinicians in our department to indicate, from a list of search terms, the terms they would use to identify RCTs in MEDLINE. The two most common terms, controlled-clinical-trial (publication type) and randomized-controlled-trial (publication type), were combined with the link word, OR, and then used to identify RCTs in four obstetrics and gynecology journals for the years 1975, 1980, 1985, 1990, and 1995. Concurrently, a handsearch of these same journals and years was performed to identify RCTs. The sensitivity and precision of MEDLINE and handsearch were calculated using the total number of RCTs identified by both methods as a reference standard. Sensitivity is the RCTs identified by search strategy as a percentage of all RCTs identified by reference standard. Precision is the RCTs identified by a search strategy as a percentage of all articles identified by it.
                The overall sensitivity of our MEDLINE search strategy was 72.5%, and the precision was 83.4%. Over 2 decades, sensitivity of our MEDLINE search increased from 0% to 94.9% (P < .001), while its precision dropped from 100% to 75.5% (P=.003). For 1990 and 1995 combined, sensitivity and precision of our MEDLINE search strategy were 90.3% and 79.6%, respectively. Overall sensitivity for handsearch was 96.5%; its precision was 5.0%. Over 2 decades, the sensitivity of handsearch dropped insignificantly from 100% to 92.3% (P=.05), while the precision increased from 2.6% to 6.3% (P < .001).
                Our simple MEDLINE search strategy has a high sensitivity and precision, especially in more recent years. Obstetricians and gynecologists may use it to search quickly for RCTs to guide patient care. 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.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS) We report the results of the handsearch of all the issues of Vaccine from 1983 to 1994 to identify randomized and controlled clinical trials (RCTs and CCTs) with the aim of setting up a Cochrane data base of vaccine trials. We read 1119 original papers and located 231 trials of which 117 (50.6%) were RCTs and 114 (49.4%) were CCTs. This compared with a MEDLINE search yield of only 60 trials (25.9% of reports identified by handsearching). Hepatitis B vaccine was the most popular topic (25.5% of trial reports), followed by influenza (13.4% of trial reports) and Hepatitis A (10.4% of trial reports). Seventy per cent of trials had been carried out in Europe or North America and mean overall trial size was 1136 patients (median 110). Overall only 20 trial reports mentioned placebo explicitly, while 22 reports contained data on both overall and arm size which could not be reconciled. Reviewers of vaccine trials should not base searches exclusively on MEDLINE as they are likely to miss up to 75% of trial reports. Vaccine should adopt a standardized format of reporting of trials and contributors should conform to these rules. The objective was to determine the number of randomized controlled trials (RCT) performed by surgeons, published in surgical journals, or comprising a surgical arm and to assess their characteristics and overall quality.
                RCT in general surgery (including gastrointestinal, breast, surgical oncology, vascular, critical care, and trauma) published in 1990 were retrieved by MEDLINE and analyzed to determine the funding agency, type of therapy, area of surgery, journal published, country of origin, number of centers, and whether a surgeon was the principal author. The completeness of the MEDLINE search was compared to a manual search of the literature. All RCT were assessed with Chalmers' qualitative score.
                MEDLINE retrieved 202 surgical RCT (46% of those retrieved by a manual search) with a mean score of 0.40 +/- 0.13. However, surgical RCT were performed by surgeons in only one third of trials, compared surgical therapies in only one quarter of trials, and were published in surgical journals in less than one third of trials. Only 22% of surgical RCT were funded by peer reviewed granting agencies. The strongest variables determining the quality of surgical RCT were the type of therapy tested (p = 0.0001), the type of journal published (p = 0.006), and the area of general surgery (p = 0.007).
                Although surgical RCT are being performed, there are a relatively low proportion and standard of RCT performed by surgeons as the principal author, published in surgical journals, and comparing surgical therapies. This may reflect a lack of expertise by surgeons in clinical trials, lack of funding for surgical trials, methodologic problems peculiar to surgical trials, or a need for adoption of other research designs to assess surgical therapies. This study sought to compare the sensitivity and precision of Embase, Medline and PsycINFO bibliographic database searches for randomized controlled trials of cognitive therapy for depression. Searches in each database combined with a hand search in five selected journals formed the total pool against which each search was assessed. Sensitivities of standard searches (index terms only) were 68%, 84% and 38% in Embase, Medline and PsycINFO respectively. Sensitivities of expert searches (index and free text terms) were 76%, 97% and 65% for Embase, Medline and PsycINFO respectively. Medline appears to be the most efficient at identifying articles describing psychological treatment evaluation. Bibliographic databases such as Medline and PsycINFO are major sources of initial information for systematic reviews. This study investigates the adequacy of Medline and PsycINFO in retrieving articles describing outcome studies of group-based psychological treatments.
                Ten journals publishing a high number of group psychotherapy articles were hand searched for the publication years 1993 and 1994. They were then searched using narrow and broad strategies developed for each database.
                The sensitivities (number of relevant articles identified by each search divided by the total number of known relevant articles identified by all searches) of narrow and broad Medline searches were 28% and 67% respectively. Precision (the number of relevant articles identified by a search divided by the number of both relevant and irrelevant articles identified by the search) was 91% and 35% for narrow and broad searches respectively. The sensitivities of narrow and broad PsycINFO searches were 8% and 47% respectively. Precision was 30% for the narrow search and 36% for the broad search. The hand search identified 94% of all known articles.
                PsycINFO performed more poorly than Medline. Although it was possible to identify 67% of outcome studies using Medline, the low precision of the necessary search strategies would make it uneconomical in practice. Abstracts of papers not identified by either search strategy were examined for possible reasons for this failure. For Medline this was generally due to the terms used to identify group psychotherapy. For PsycINFO it appears that the indexing system does not allow the easy identification of outcome studies. To describe preliminary work undertaken for development of a nursing contribution to the Cochrane Collaboration. To ascertain whether there are randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on nursing care which need to be identified for inclusion in systematic reviews of the effects of health care.
                Searches by Medline (1966-94) and by hand of 11 nursing research journals from inception to the end of 1994 to identify RCTs and systematic reviews; and a comparison of searches by hand and by Medline for three nursing research journals.
                Total number of RCTs identified and number of RCTs published in nursing journals; the sensitivity of Medline searches; and aspects of nursing care evaluated by RCT.
                The work is ongoing and 522 reports of RCTs and 20 systematic reviews of effectiveness have been identified so far. The sensitivity of Medline searches for RCTs in nursing journals is as low as 36% for one journal and the lack of reference to research design in the title or abstract was the main reason for the lack of sensitivity.
                There are RCTs that evaluate aspects of nursing care, and are published in nursing and non-nursing journals, and are largely undertaken by nurses. These must be reviewed in ongoing systematic reviews of the effects of health care (including those undertaken as part of the Cochrane Collaboration). Nursing journals must be hand searched to identify these studies as the lack of reference to study design in the titles and abstracts of nursing trials leads to poor indexing in electronic databases such as Medline. A database of randomised clinical trials (RCTs) in pain research published from 1950 to 1990 was created following an extensive literature search. By applying a refined MEDLINE search strategy from 1966 to 1990 and by hand-searching more than 1,000,000 pages of a total of 40 biomedical journals published during the period 1950-1990, more than 8000 RCTs were identified. The RCTs were published in more than 800 journals and over 85% appeared between 1976 and 1990. If the trend of the last 15 years persists, a total of more than 15 000 RCTs will be published in pain relief by the year 2000. A detailed description of methods to ensure efficient use of resources during the identification, retrieval and management of the information in pain relief and other fields is given. Emphasis is made on the importance of refining MEDLINE search strategies, on the use of volunteers to hand-search journals and on careful monitoring of each of the steps of the process. The potential uses of the database to guide clinical and research decisions are discussed. As part of the Cochrane Collaboration's international research endeavour, the authors carried out a handsearch of the Journal of the Royal Naval Medical Service from 1948 to 1998, searching for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs). Five trials were identified, of which three were RCTs and two were CCTs. The first trial was published in 1960. The identified trials were in the fields of dentistry (two trials), gastroenterology, occupational medicine and orthopaedic surgery. Of the five trials, only two had been located previously through a rigorous interrogation of Medline. The three newly identified trials were reported to the UK Cochrane Centre, and details of these three trials were entered into Medline for use by clinicians and investigators in the future.
Handsearching still has a valuable role to play in identifying reports of randomized trials for inclusion in systematic reviews of health care interventions, particularly in identifying trials reported as abstracts, letters and those published in languages other than English, together with all reports published in journals not indexed in electronic databases. However, where time and resources are limited, searching an electronic database using a complex search (or the Cochrane HSSS) will identify the majority of trials published as full reports in English language journals, provided, of course, that the relevant journals have been indexed in the database.