Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Medical Research Methodology
Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology 1/2016

Open Access 01-12-2016 | Research article

The development of PubMed search strategies for patient preferences for treatment outcomes

Authors: Ralph van Hoorn, Wietske Kievit, Andrew Booth, Kati Mozygemba, Kristin Bakke Lysdahl, Pietro Refolo, Dario Sacchini, Ansgar Gerhardus, Gert Jan van der Wilt, Marcia Tummers

Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology | Issue 1/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The importance of respecting patients’ preferences when making treatment decisions is increasingly recognized. Efficiently retrieving papers from the scientific literature reporting on the presence and nature of such preferences can help to achieve this goal. The objective of this study was to create a search filter for PubMed to help retrieve evidence on patient preferences for treatment outcomes.

Methods

A total of 27 journals were hand-searched for articles on patient preferences for treatment outcomes published in 2011. Selected articles served as a reference set. To develop optimal search strategies to retrieve this set, all articles in the reference set were randomly split into a development and a validation set. MeSH-terms and keywords retrieved using PubReMiner were tested individually and as combinations in PubMed and evaluated for retrieval performance (e.g. sensitivity (Se) and specificity (Sp)).

Results

Of 8238 articles, 22 were considered to report empirical evidence on patient preferences for specific treatment outcomes. The best search filters reached Se of 100 % [95 % CI 100-100] with Sp of 95 % [94–95 %] and Sp of 97 % [97–98 %] with 75 % Se [74–76 %]. In the validation set these queries reached values of Se of 90 % [89–91 %] with Sp 94 % [93–95 %] and Se of 80 % [79–81 %] with Sp of 97 % [96–96 %], respectively.

Conclusions

Narrow and broad search queries were developed which can help in retrieving literature on patient preferences for treatment outcomes. Identifying such evidence may in turn enhance the incorporation of patient preferences in clinical decision making and health technology assessment.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
2.
Gagnon MP, Desmartis M, Lepage-Savary D, Gagnon J, St-Pierre M, Rhainds M, Lemieux R, Gauvin FP, Pollender H, Legare F. Introducing patients’ and the public’s perspectives to health technology assessment: A systematic review of international experiences. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2011;27(1):31–42.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Barratt A. Evidence based medicine and shared decision making: the challenge of getting both evidence and preferences into health care. Patient Educ Couns. 2008;73(3):407–12.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Oshima Lee E, Emanuel EJ. Shared decision making to improve care and reduce costs. N Engl J Med. 2013;368(1):6–8.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Lindhiem O, Bennett CB, Trentacosta CJ, McLear C. Client preferences affect treatment satisfaction, completion, and clinical outcome: A meta-analysis. Clin Psychol Rev. 2014;34(6):506–17.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
6.
Shingler SL, Bennett BM, Cramer JA, Towse A, Twelves C, Lloyd AJ. Treatment preference, adherence and outcomes in patients with cancer: literature review and development of a theoretical model. Curr Med Res Opin. 2014;30(11):2329–41.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Elwyn G, Tilburt J, Montori V. The ethical imperative for shared decision-making. Eur J Pers Cent Healthc. 2013;1(1):129–31.CrossRef
8.
Pieterse AH, Baas-Thijssen MC, Marijnen CA, Stiggelbout AM. Clinician and cancer patient views on patient participation in treatment decision-making: a quantitative and qualitative exploration. Br J Cancer. 2008;99(6):875–82.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
9.
10.
Fraenkel L, Suter L, Cunningham CE, Hawker G. Understanding preferences for disease-modifying drugs in osteoarthritis. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2014;66(8):1186–92.CrossRef
11.
Abraham NS, Naik AD, Street Jr RL, Castillo DL, Deswal A, Richardson PA, Hartman CM, Shelton Jr G, Fraenkel L. Complex antithrombotic therapy: determinants of patient preference and impact on medication adherence. Patient Preference Adherence. 2015;9:1657–68.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
12.
Krahn M, Naglie G. The next step in guideline development: incorporating patient preferences. JAMA. 2008;300(4):436–8.CrossRefPubMed
13.
MacLean S, Mulla S, Akl EA, Jankowski M, Vandvik PO, Ebrahim S, McLeod S, Bhatnagar N, Guyatt GH, American College of Chest P. Patient values and preferences in decision making for antithrombotic therapy: a systematic review: antithrombotic therapy and prevention of thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. Chest. 2012;141(2 Suppl):e1S–23.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
14.
Hanley B, Truesdale A, King A, Elbourne D, Chalmers I. Involving consumers in designing, conducting, and interpreting randomised controlled trials: questionnaire survey. BMJ. 2001;322(7285):519–23.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
15.
Brooker A-S, Carcone S, Witteman W, Krahn M. Quantitative patient preference evidence for health Technology Assessment: a case study. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2013;29(03):290–300.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Muhlbacher AC. Patient-centric HTA: different strokes for different folks. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2015;15(4):591–7.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Ely JW, Osheroff JA, Chambliss ML, Ebell MH, Rosenbaum ME. Answering physicians’ clinical questions: obstacles and potential solutions. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2005;12(2):217–24.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
18.
Eiring O, Landmark BF, Aas E, Salkeld G, Nylenna M, Nytrøen K. What matters to patients? A systematic review of preferences for medication-associated outcomes in mental disorders. BMJ Open. 2015;5(4):e007848.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
19.
Opmeer BC, de Borgie CA, Mol BW, Bossuyt PM. Assessing preferences regarding healthcare interventions that involve non-health outcomes: an overview of clinical studies. Patient. 2010;3(1):1–10.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Haynes RB, McKibbon KA, Wilczynski NL, Walter SD, Werre SR, Hedges T. Optimal search strategies for retrieving scientifically strong studies of treatment from Medline: analytical survey. BMJ. 2005;330(7501):1179.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
21.
Rodriguez RW. Delay in indexing articles published in major pharmacy practice journals. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2014;71(4):321–4.CrossRefPubMed
22.
23.
McKibbon KA, Wilczynski NL, Haynes RB, Hedges T. Retrieving randomized controlled trials from medline: a comparison of 38 published search filters. Health Info Libr J. 2009;26(3):187–202.CrossRefPubMed
24.
Bachmann LM, Coray R, Estermann P, Ter Riet G. Identifying diagnostic studies in MEDLINE: reducing the number needed to read. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2002;9(6):653–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
25.
Haynes RB, Wilczynski N, McKibbon KA, Walker CJ, Sinclair JC. Developing optimal search strategies for detecting clinically sound studies in MEDLINE. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 1994;1(6):447–58.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
26.
Wilczynski NL, Walker CJ, McKibbon KA, Haynes RB. Assessment of methodologic search filters in MEDLINE. In: Proceedings / the Annual Symposium on Computer Application [sic] in Medical Care Symposium on Computer Applications in Medical Care. 1993. p. 601–5.
27.
Hildebrand AM, Iansavichus AV, Haynes RB, Wilczynski NL, Mehta RL, Parikh CR, Garg AX. High-performance information search filters for acute kidney injury content in PubMed, Ovid Medline and Embase. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2014;29(4):823–32.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Brett Hauber A, Fairchild AO, Reed Johnson F. Quantifying benefit-risk preferences for medical interventions: an overview of a growing empirical literature. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2013;11(4):319–29.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
The development of PubMed search strategies for patient preferences for treatment outcomes
Authors
Ralph van Hoorn
Wietske Kievit
Andrew Booth
Kati Mozygemba
Kristin Bakke Lysdahl
Pietro Refolo
Dario Sacchini
Ansgar Gerhardus
Gert Jan van der Wilt
Marcia Tummers
Publication date
01-12-2016
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology / Issue 1/2016
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2288
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-016-0192-5

Other articles of this Issue 1/2016

BMC Medical Research Methodology 1/2016 Go to the issue

Research article

The matching quality of experimental and control interventions in blinded pharmacological randomised clinical trials: a methodological systematic review

Research article

Exploring functional data analysis and wavelet principal component analysis on ecstasy (MDMA) wastewater data

Research article

Patient enrollment and logistical problems top the list of difficulties in clinical research: a cross-sectional survey

Research article

Head to head comparison of the propensity score and the high-dimensional propensity score matching methods

Research article

Once a clinician, always a clinician: a systematic review to develop a typology of clinician-researcher dual-role experiences in health research with patient-participants

Research article

Reliability and criterion validity of self-measured waist, hip, and neck circumferences