Skip to main content

Table 4 Overview and evaluation of the NRS filters identified

From: Study filters for non-randomized studies of interventions consistently lacked sensitivity upon external validation

Study filters (developers)

Study types targeted

Codinga)

Hits in MEDLINE

Sensitivity (interval)b)

Clinical trials (University of Texas) [27]

Clinical trials

2

1.445.276

39%

Observational Studies – Medline (SIGN) [20]

Observational studies

5–10

2.492.125

49–90%

MEDLINE precision (Fraser 2000) [24]

Observational studies

5–8,10

9.509.757

73–88%

MEDLINE specificity (Fraser 2000) [24]

Observational studies

5–8,10

8.423.107

53–85%

MEDLINE cohort, case-control, and case series strategy (BMJ) [28]

Observational studies

5–8,10

2.517.309

55–92%

MEDLINE cohort, case-control, case series, and case study strategy (BMJ) [28]

Observational studies

5–8,10

4.441.461

61–93%

Search terms for finding non-RCTs (Royle 2003) [29]

Non-RCT

2–12

8.073.091

46–98%

MEDLINE cohort study strategy (BMJ) [28]

Cohort studies

5–7

1.982.782

58–69%

Cohort studies (University of Texas) [27]

Cohort studies

5–7

2.204.911

52–72%

Case-control studies_1 (University of Texas) [27]

Case-control studies

8

660.864

78%

Case-control studies_2 (University of Texas) [27]

Case-control studies

8

1.284.387

80%

Medline cohort and case-control strategy (BMJ) [28]

Cohort, case-control

5–8

2.430.887

61–92%

Fixed method A for MEDLINE (Furlan 2006) [21]

Cohort, case-control, cross-sectional

5–9

4.184.894

49–83%

Fixed method B for MEDLINE (Furlan 2006) [21]

Cohort, case-control, cross-sectional

5–9

6.559.073

69–85%

  1. a) Coding of study types; see Table 2; b) Presentation as an interval if the study filter covers more than one study type
  2. SIGN Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network, BMJ British Medical Journal Clinical Evidence