3. InterTASC ‐ Boynton 1998.

A. Information
A.1 State the author’s objective	"To develop a highly sensitive search strategy to identify systematic reviews of intervention, including meta‐analyzes, indexed in MEDLINE and to evaluate this strategy in terms of its sensitivity and precision."
A.2 State the focus of the research.	Sensitivity‐maximising Precision‐maximising
A.3 Database(s) and search interface(s) .	MEDLINE(Ovid).
A.4 Describe the methodological focus of the filter (e.g. RCTs).	Systematic reviews
A.5 Describe any other topic that forms an additional focus of the filter (e.g. clinical topics such as breast cancer, geographic location such as Asia or population grouping such as paediatrics).	N/A
A.6 Other observations.	N/A
B. Identification of a gold standard (GS) of known relevant records
B.1 Did the authors identify one or more gold standards (GSs)?	1 GSs To test the sensitivity and precision of various search terms.a ‘quasi‐gold standard’ of systematic reviews was established by a combination of hand and electronic searching.
B.2 How did the authors identify the records in each GS?	The ‘quasi‐gold standard’ was produced by using:Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) citation index impact factors to identify six journals from the top ten high‐impact factor journals in the ‘Medicine general and internal’ category produced by ISI, searched by hand for the year.Search strategy used to identify candidate systematic reviews in MEDLINE (Ovid)
B.3 Report the dates of the records in each GS.	1992 and 1995
B.4 What are the inclusion criteria for each GS?	Decisions on whether to include studies in the ‘quasi‐gold standard’ by two authors (JB and JG) independently, using a CRD quick‐assessment sifting process.
B.5 Describe the size of each GS and theauthors’ justification, if provided (for example the size of the gold standard may have been determined by a power calculation)	288 papers. Ninety per cent of these systematic reviews were identified by hand searching and a further 10% by searching MEDLINE.
B.6 Are there limitations to the gold standard(s)?	Search dates limited (1992‐1995)
B.7 How was each gold standard used?	‐ To identify potential search terms ‐ To derive potential strategies (groups of terms) ‐ To test internal validityTo test external validity
B.8 Other observations.	No
C. How did the researchers identify the search terms in their filter(s) (select all that apply)?
C.1 Adapted a published search strategy.	No
C.2 Asked experts for suggestions of relevant terms.	No
C.3 Used a database thesaurus.	Mesh, Subject Headings.
C.4 Statistical analysis of terms in a gold standard set of records (see B above).	The list of candidate terms for search strategies was derived by analysing the MEDLINE records of the 288 articles in the ‘quasi‐gold standard’ for word frequency.
C.5 Extracted terms from the gold standard set of records (see B above).	No
C.6 Extracted terms from some relevant records (but not a gold standard).	No
C.7 Tick all types of search terms tested.	‐ Subject headings ‐ Text words (e.g. in title, abstract) ‐ Publication types
C.8 Include the citation of any adapted strategies.	N/A
C.9 How were the (final) combination(s) of search terms selected?	The list of terms was sorted acording to the best results for sensitivity and precision.
C.10 Were the search terms combined (using Boolean logic) in a way that is likely to retrieve the studies of interest?	Yes, Only MEDLINE search appendix 1
C.11 Other observations.	No
D. Internal validity testing (This type of testing is possible when the search filter terms were developed from a known gold standard set of records).
D.1 How many filters were tested for internal validity?	8 filters: Strategy A: Sensitivity ≥ 50, Precision ≥ 25%, Strategy B: Sensitivity ≥ 25%, Precision ≥ 10%, Strategy C: Sensitivity ≥ 25%, Precision ≥ 25%, Strategy D: Sensitivity ≥ 25%, Precision ≥ 50%, Strategy E: Sensitivity ≥ 25%, Precision ≥ 70%, Strategy F: Sensitivity ≥ 50%, Precision ≥ 10%, Strategy H: Sensitivity ≥ 25%, Precision ≥ 10%, Strategy J: Sensitivity ≥ 15%, Precision ≥ 25% 3 additional filters were tested with expert input.
For each filter report the following information
D.2 Was the performance of the search filter tested on the gold standard from which it was derived?	Yes, the search strategies were compared against the performance of other published search strategies in relation to the ‘quasi‐gold standard’ and the OVID MEDLINE interface.
D.3 Report sensitivity data (a single value, a range, ‘Unclear’* or ‘not reported’, as appropriate). *Please describe.	Yes, Strategy A: 66%, Strategy B: 95%, Strategy C: 92%, Strategy D: 39%, Strategy E: 29%, Strategy F: 61%, Strategy H: 98%, Strategy J: 98%
D.4 Report precision data (a single value, a range, ‘Unclear’* or ‘not reported’ as appropriate). *Please describe.	A single value: Strategy A: 26%, Strategy B: 12%, Strategy C: 23%, Strategy D: 49%, Strategy E: 79%, Strategy F: 42%, Strategy H: 19%, Strategy J: 20%
D.5 Report specificity data (a single value, a range, ‘Unclear’* or ‘not reported’ as appropriate). *Please describe.	No
D.6 Other performance measures reported.	No
D.7 Other observations.	No
E. External validity testing (This section relates to testing the search filter on records that are different from the records used to identify the search terms)
E.1 How many filters were tested for external validity on records different from those used to identify the search terms?	No external validity test performed
E.2 Describe the validation set(s) of records, including the interface.	N/A
E.3 On which validation set(s) was the filter tested?	N/A
E.4 Report sensitivity data for each validation set (a single value, a range or ‘Unclear’ or ‘not reported’, as appropriate).	N/A
E.5 Report precision data for each validation set (report a single value, a range or ‘Unclear’ or ‘not reported’, as appropriate).	N/A
E.6 Report specificity data for each validation set (a single value, a range or ‘Unclear’ or ‘not reported’, as appropriate).	N/A
E.6 Other performance measures reported.	N/A
E.7 Other observations.	No
F. Limitations and comparisons.
F.1 Did the authors discuss any limitations to their research?	Yes, “This study is based on six ‘high‐impact’ factor English‐language journals which may not be representative of health care journals as a whole”“The years chosen for the creation of the ‘quasi‐gold standard’ may present a limitation of this study”“The CRD definition of systematic reviews and the associated criteria used by CRD to identify articles for inclusion in DARE, as outlined in Section 1.1 above, may be criticised for being too demanding”
F.2 Are there other potential limitations to this research that you have noticed?	NO
F.3 Report any comparisons of the performance of the filter against other relevant published filters (sensitivity, precision, specificity or other measures).	Yes: Hunt and McKibbon full: Sensitivity 41%, Precision 75%. Hunt and McKibbon brief: Sensitivity 40%, Precision 75%. CRD full: Sensitivity 84%, Precision 31%. CRD brief: Sensitivity 41%, Precision 64%.
F.4 Include the citations of any compared filters.	Yes. ( Hunt 1997 ; NHS 1996 )
F.5 Other observations and / or comments.	No
G. Other comments. This section can be used to provide any other comments. Selected prompts for issues to bear in mind are given below.
G.1 Have you noticed any errors in the document that might impact on the usability of the filter?	No
G.2 Are there any published errata or comments (for example in the MEDLINE record)?	No
G.3 Is there public access to pre‐publication history and / or correspondence?	No
G.4 Are further data available on a linked site or from the authors?	No
G.5 Include references to related papers and/or other relevant material.	No
G.6 Other comments.	No