Irish Journal of Psychological Medicine (IJPM) was recently accepted for indexing on Medline. This reflects the high scientific quality of articles published in the journal and highlights the excellent work by publishers, authors, reviewers and the journal editorial board who have contributed to the journal’s development over many years. IJPM remains committed to further progression through constant innovation and maintaining the excellent standard of publishing to date. We look forward to promoting our aims of improving knowledge and advocating for better mental health services by continuing to highlight key topics of current relevance to mental health.

Objectives: The objective of this study was to explore the degree to which databases other than MEDLINE contribute studies relevant for inclusion in rapid health technology assessments (HTA).

Methods: We determined the extent to which the clinical, economic, and social studies included in twenty-one full and four rapid HTAs published by three Canadian HTA agencies from 2007 to 2012 were indexed in MEDLINE. Other electronic databases, including EMBASE, were then searched, in sequence, to assess whether or not they indexed studies not found in MEDLINE. Assessment topics ranged from purely clinical (e.g., drug-eluting stents) to those with broader social implications (e.g., spousal violence).

Results: MEDLINE contributed the majority of studies in all but two HTA reports, indexing a mean of 89.6 percent of clinical studies across all HTAs, and 88.3 percent of all clinical, economic, and social studies in twenty-four of twenty-five HTAs. While EMBASE contributed unique studies to twenty-two of twenty-five HTAs, three rapid HTAs did not include any EMBASE studies. In some instances, PsycINFO and CINAHL contributed as many, if not more, non-MEDLINE studies than EMBASE.

Conclusions: Our findings highlight the importance of assessing the topic-specific relative value of including EMBASE, or more specialized databases, in HTA search protocols. Although MEDLINE continues to be a key resource for HTAs, the time and resource limitations inherent in the production of rapid HTAs require that researchers carefully consider the value and limitations of other information sources to identify relevant studies.

Objectives: Health technology assessment (HTA) agencies assessing the cost-effectiveness of healthcare technologies seek evidence from economic evaluations. As well as searching economic evaluation databases, researchers often search MEDLINE and EMBASE, using search filters whose current performance is unclear. We assessed the performance of search filters in identifying economic evaluations from MEDLINE and EMBASE.

Methods: A gold standard of economic evaluations was compiled from National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED) records for 2000, 2003, and 2006. Corresponding records were retrieved in MEDLINE and EMBASE. Search filters were identified from the InterTASC Information Specialists’ SubGroup Web site and from Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) Information Services. The sensitivity and precision of search filters in retrieving gold standard records from MEDLINE and EMBASE were tested.

Results: A total of 2,070 full economic evaluations were identified from NHS EED. Of these, 1,955 records were available in Ovid MEDLINE and 1,873 were available in Ovid EMBASE. Thirteen MEDLINE and eight EMBASE filters were identified. NHS Quality Improvement Scotland (full and brief filters), the NHS EED and Royle and Waugh filters achieved over 0.99 sensitivity in MEDLINE. NHS Quality Improvement Scotland, CADTH, Royle and Waugh, and NHS EED filters achieved greater than 0.99 sensitivity in EMBASE. Filters demonstrated low precision.

Conclusions: This research provided new performance data on search filters to identify economic evaluations in MEDLINE and EMBASE. It demonstrated that highly sensitive economic evaluation filters are available, but that precision is low, yielding perhaps 5 relevant records per 100 records scanned.

Objective: To evaluate the sensitivity and precision of various extended search methods in identifying randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for systematic reviews.

Method: Prospective analysis of extended search methods (specialized databases or trial registries, reference lists, hand-searching, personal communication, and Internet) used in two systematic reviews of RCTs. The gold standard was the total number of RCTs identified by major databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, etc.) and extended search strategies combined. Sensitivity was the proportion of all known RCTs identified by any extended search method. Precision reflected the proportion of all items uncovered by any extended search method that actually were RCTs.

Results: The extended search identified 94 additional RCTs for the systematic reviews beyond those identified with the major databases. Specialized databases and trial registries had the highest sensitivity and precision for the lipid-lowering project (13.6% and 52.7%, respectively; p < .05) followed by scanning of reference lists (7.2% sensitivity and 41.9% precision; p < .05). Hand-searching was more effective than personal communication and Internet searching (1.7% sensitivity and 12.2% precision; p < .05). The acupuncture project had slightly different results, with the specialized databases and trial registries tied with the review of reference lists for highest sensitivity (14.2%). The precision followed the same trend as the lipid-lowering project (17.6% specialized databases; 8.3% reference lists; p < .05). A post-hoc analysis showed that 75 of the 94 RCTs were indexed in the major databases but missed by the major database search.

Conclusions: Extended searching identified additional RCTs for the systematic reviews beyond those found in major databases. Specialized databases and trial registries were most effective. An important number of RCTs were missed by the major database search. Timing and accuracy of indexing may explain this finding. The definitive measure, whether there is an association between the method used to uncover RCTs, the quality of the items uncovered and their impact on systematic review results, is yet to be determined.

Background and objective: To assess the publication rate of full papers presented as abstracts at the 1995 meeting of the European Society of Anaesthesiologists, and to assess factors that might predict subsequent full publication.

Methods: All abstracts presented at the meeting and published in the British Journal of Anaesthesia (Suppl 1, 1995) were included. To verify subsequent full publication, a MEDLINE search was performed and validated. We studied the average time from the meeting to publication, the first author's country, the subspeciality, the publishing journal of the full report, the type of presentation (oral or poster), the object of investigation, and the quality of research design and of statistical reporting in the abstract.

Results: Of 472 meeting abstracts, 199 (42.2%) were eventually published. The average (± SD) delay between meeting and publication was 16.8 (15.6) months (range 24–60 months). Most papers (79.4%) had been published within 3 yr of the meeting. Circulation, pharmacology and intensive care papers had the highest rates of publication. Sixty-three journals attracted papers, with the British Journal of Anaesthesia publishing most (n = 29). No difference in subsequent publication was found between oral and poster presentations. Randomized trials and animal research were more likely to be published. The number of authors or their positions differed between the abstract and the full publication in 145 cases (72.9%); the first author was changed in 43 cases.

Conclusions: Less than half of the abstracts accepted at the 1995 European Society of Anesthesiologists' meeting were subsequently published in journals indexed by MEDLINE in the 3 yr following the meeting. Many changes in authorship occurred between the abstract and the full publication. The study architecture and the object of investigation predicted full publication.

Objectives: To determine if published figures on the proportion of articles included in systematic reviews and identified in electronic databases are applicable to an example from medical imaging.

Methods: A systematic review was performed. Additionally, sensitivity and precision of a MEDLINE search were compared with values from three published searches, each customized for a specific field.

Results: All articles included in the systematic review were in electronic databases. The MEDLINE search had low precision compared with searches in other fields.

Conclusions: In a specific area of medical imaging, electronic databases, including MEDLINE, are reliable sources of articles.

The current medical environment makes information retrieval a matter of practical importance for clinicians. Many avenues present themselves to the clinician, but here we focus on MEDLINE by summarizing the current state of the art and providing an innovative approach for skill enhancement. Because new search engines appear rapidly, we focus on generic principles that can be easily adapted to various systems, even those not yet available. We propose an idealized classification system for the results of a MEDLINE search. Type A searches produce a few articles of high quality that are directly focused on the immediate question. Type B searches yield a large number of articles, some more relevant than others. Type C searches produce few or no articles, and those that are located are not germane. Providing that relevant, high-quality articles do exist, type B and C searches may often be improved with attention to search technique. Problems stem from poor recall and poor precision. The most daunting task lies in achieving the balance between too few and too many articles. By providing a theoretical framework and several practical examples, we prepare the searcher to overcome the following barriers: a) failure to begin with a well-built question; b) failure to use the Medical Subject Headings; c) failure to leverage the relationship between recall and precision; and d) failure to apply proper limits to the search. Thought and practice will increase the utility and enjoyment of searching MEDLINE.

Biomedical databases are an important source of information for health technology assessment. However, there is considerable variation in the costs of accessing commercial databases. We sought to measure the quality, amount of overlap, and costs of information retrieved from two of the main database sources — MEDLINE and EMBASE. Librarians at two health technology assessment agencies ran a total of eight literature searches on various medical technologies, using both databases. All search results were independently reviewed by two researchers. The researchers were asked to identify relevant references and to rank each of these according to a level of evidence scale. The results were tabulated to show the number of references identified by each database, the number of relevant references ranked by level of evidence, and the number of these references that were unique to one or the other database. The cost of retrieving references from each source was also calculated. Each database contained relevant references not available in the other. Because of the longer time lag for indexing in MEDLINE, many of the references that originally appeared to be unique to EMBASE were subsequently available in MEDLINE as well. Since our study was conducted, MEDLINE has been made available worldwide, free of charge, via the Internet. Hence, the cost difference between the databases is now even greater. However, notwithstanding the costs, it appears that literature searches that rely on only one or the other database will inevitably miss pertinent information.

There is a growth in the demand for clinical practice to be evidence based. Recent years have seen a rise in the number of randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTS). Such trials while acknowledged as the gold standard for evidence can be difficult to perform in surgical specialities. We have recently identified a low proportion of RCTS in the otolaryngology literature. Our aim was to identify any trend in the number of published RCTS within the ENT literature over a 30-year period and to identify which areas of our speciality lend themselves to this form of study design. A Medline search of 10 prominent journals published between 1966 and 1995 was performed. Two hundred and ninety-six RCTS were identified. Only five were published before 1980. Two hundred (71 per cent) of RCTS were in the areas of otology and rhinology. An encouraging trend is seen in RCTS within ENT literature.