Tackling Research Inefficiency in Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy: Illustrative Review
Open Access
- 1 June 2020
- journal article
- review article
- Published by JMIR Publications Inc. in JMIR Research Protocols
- Vol. 9 (6), e15922
- https://doi.org/10.2196/15922
Abstract
Background: Degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM) is widely accepted as the most common cause of adult myelopathy worldwide. Despite this, there is no specific term or diagnostic criteria in the International Classification of Diseases 11th Revision and no Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) or an equivalent in common literature databases. This makes searching the literature and thus conducting systematic reviews or meta-analyses imprecise and inefficient. Efficient research synthesis is integral to delivering evidence-based medicine and improving research efficiency. Objective: This study aimed to illustrate the difficulties encountered when attempting to carry out a comprehensive and accurate evidence search in the field of DCM by identifying the key sources of imprecision and quantifying their impact. Methods: To identify the key sources of imprecision and quantify their impact, an illustrative search strategy was developed using a validated DCM hedge combined with contemporary strategies used by authors in previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses. This strategy was applied to Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE) and Excerpta Medica dataBASE (EMBASE) databases looking for relevant DCM systematic reviews and meta-analyses published within the last 5 years. Results: The MEDLINE via PubMed search strategy returned 24,166 results, refined to 534 papers after the application of inclusion and exclusion criteria. Of these, 32.96% (176/534) results were about DCM, and 18.16% (97/534) of these were DCM systematic reviews or meta-analyses. Non-DCM results were organized into imprecision categories (spinal: 268/534, 50.2%; nonspinal: 84/534, 15.5%; and nonhuman: 8/534, 1.5%). The largest categories were spinal cord injury (75/534, 13.67%), spinal neoplasms (44/534, 8.24%), infectious diseases of the spine and central nervous system (18/534, 3.37%), and other spinal levels (ie, thoracic, lumbar, and sacral; 18/534, 3.37%). Counterintuitively, the use of human and adult PubMed filters was found to exclude a large number of relevant articles. Searching a second database (EMBASE) added an extra 12 DCM systematic reviews or meta-analyses. Conclusions: DCM search strategies face significant imprecision, principally because of overlapping and heterogenous search terms, and inaccurate article indexing. Notably, commonly employed MEDLINE filters, human and adult, reduced search sensitivity, whereas the related articles function and the use of a second database (EMBASE) improved it. Development of a MeSH labeling and a standardized DCM definition would allow comprehensive and specific indexing of DCM literature. This is required to support a more efficient research synthesis.This publication has 36 references indexed in Scilit:
- Search filters to identify geriatric medicine in MedlineJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 2011
- Tight squeeze, slow burn: inflammation and the aetiology of cervical myelopathyBrain, 2011
- Human neuropathological and animal model evidence supporting a role for Fas-mediated apoptosis and inflammation in cervical spondylotic myelopathyBrain, 2011
- ExaCT: automatic extraction of clinical trial characteristics from journal publicationsBMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 2010
- Seventy-Five Trials and Eleven Systematic Reviews a Day: How Will We Ever Keep Up?PLoS Medicine, 2010
- Avoidable Waste in the Production and Reporting of Research EvidenceObstetrics & Gynecology, 2009
- Consistency and accuracy of indexing systematic review articles and meta-analyses in medlineHealth Information and Libraries Journal, 2009
- Comparing test searches in PubMed and Google ScholarJournal of the Medical Library Association, 2007
- Google Scholar: the pros and the consOnline Information Review, 2005
- Optimal search strategies for retrieving systematic reviews from Medline: analytical surveyBMJ, 2004