Objectives: Errors in search strategies negatively affect the quality and validity of systematic reviews. The primary objective of this study was to evaluate searches performed in MEDLINE/PubMed to identify errors and determine their effects on information retrieval.Methods: A PubMed search was conducted using the systematic review filter to identify articles that were published in January of 2018. Systematic reviews or meta-analyses were selected from a systematic search for literature containing reproducible and explicit search strategies in MEDLINE/PubMed. Data were extracted from these studies related to ten types of errors and to the terms and phrases search modes.Results: The study included 137 systematic reviews in which the number of search strategies containing some type of error was very high (92.7%). Errors that affected recall were the most frequent (78.1%), and the most common search errors involved missing terms in both natural language and controlled language and those related to Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) search terms and the non-retrieval of their more specific terms.Conclusions: To improve the quality of searches and avoid errors, it is essential to plan the search strategy carefully, which includes consulting the MeSH database to identify the concepts and choose all appropriate terms, both descriptors and synonyms, and combining search techniques in the free-text and controlled-language fields, truncating the terms appropriately to retrieve all their variants.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence of diabetes and impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) and to investigate their associated cardiovascular risk factors in Aragón, Spain. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We performed a population-based cross-sectional study with stratified and purposive sampling of residents aged 10–74 years. A sample of 935 subjects (427 men and 508 women) was selected. All except those with a previous history of diabetes underwent an oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT), and World Health Organization (WHO) criteria were used for diagnosis of undiagnosed diabetes and IGT. Plasma lipid levels, blood pressure, BMI, and waist-to-hip ratio were also measured. RESULTS: The prevalence of diagnosed and undiagnosed diabetes and IGT was 3.1, 3.0, and 7.2%, respectively. In the age range of 30–64 years, the age-adjusted prevalence of diabetes (using the world population of Segi) was 7.1% in men and 5.6% in women. Both diabetes and IGT were associated with high blood pressure, high triglyceride levels, low HDL cholesterol levels, and overweight and upper-body fat distribution. Only upper-body fat distribution in women was significantly higher in subjects with diabetes than in subjects with IGT. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of diabetes in Aragón was moderately high (6.1%) and comparable with that reported in other white populations around the world. The proportion of unknown cases of diabetes was nearly 50%. Cardiovascular risk factors associated with diabetes and IGT supported the existence of an insulin resistance or metabolic syndrome, but there were not sufficient differences between diabetes and IGT to suggest a possible pathogenetic relation of hyperinsulinemia and associated risk factors.

Objective: Locating systematic reviews is essential for clinicians and researchers when creating or updating reviews and for decision-making in health care. This study aimed to develop a search filter for retrieving systematic reviews that improves upon the performance of the PubMed systematic review search filter.Methods: Search terms were identified from abstracts of reviews published in Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the titles of articles indexed as systematic reviews in PubMed. Both the precision of the candidate terms and the number of systematic reviews retrieved from PubMed were evaluated after excluding the subset of articles retrieved by the PubMed systematic review filter. Terms that achieved a precision greater than 70% and relevant publication types indexed with MeSH terms were included in the filter search strategy.Results: The search strategy used in our filter added specific terms not included in PubMed’s systematic review filter and achieved a 61.3% increase in the number of retrieved articles that are potential systematic reviews. Moreover, it achieved an average precision that is likely greater than 80%.Conclusions: The developed search filter will enable users to identify more systematic reviews from PubMed than the PubMed systematic review filter with high precision.

Introducción y objetivo: La investigación con encuestas es un método utilizado con frecuencia en el área de Biblioteconomía y Documentación. El objetivo principal de este estudio es evaluar si los estudios realizados en el ámbito de la Biblioteconomía que utilizan encuestas como método de investigación proporcionan información completa y detallada sobre su diseño y ejecución. Métodos: Se seleccionaron de la base de datos Web of Science los artículos publicados en 2019 en revistas del área de Library Science incluidas en el Journal Citation Reports que empleaban encuestas como método de investigación cuantitativa. Para valorar el grado de cobertura informativa se creó una herramienta formada por 32 elementos utilizados en diversas guías y recomendaciones. Resultados y conclusiones: La mayoría de los artículos basados en encuestas en el área de Biblioteconomía y Documentación presentan una grave deficiencia en la información proporcionada. Es necesario mejorar y completar información sobre el procedimiento de muestreo, desarrollo y administración del cuestionario, así como sobre el análisis de sus resultados. Esta información permitirá valorar los potenciales errores cometidos y, en consecuencia, la calidad y validez de las conclusiones del estudio.

Correlación entre indicadores bibliométricos en revistas de Web of Science y Scopus