7. InterTASC ‐ Shojania 2001.

A. Information
A.1 State the author’s objective.	"To develop and evaluate a search strategy for identifying systematic reviews by using a publicly available MEDLINE interface (PubMed)."
A.2 State the focus of the research.	Sensitivity‐maximising Precision‐maximising Balance of sensitivity and specificity / precision
A.3 Database(s) and search interface(s).	MEDLINE (PubMed)
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).	Screening for colorectal cancer, thrombolytic therapy for venous thromboembolism, and treatment of dementia (for calculating predictive values)
A.6 Other observations.	No
B. Identification of a gold standard (GS) of known relevant records
B.1 Did the authors identify one or more gold standards (GSs)?	MEDLINE (Pubmed)
B.2 How did the authors identify the records in each GS?	Systematic reviews
B.3 Report the dates of the records in each GS.
B.4 What are the inclusion criteria for each GS?	No reported
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)	“Included reviews must meet at least four methodologic criteria, and all included articles must display “evidence of a substantial effort to search for all relevant research.”“Review articles included in ACP Journal Club must contain “an identifiable description of the methods indicating the sources and methods for searching for articles and state the clinical topic and the inclusion and exclusion criteria for selecting articles for detailed review.”
B.6 Are there limitations to the gold standard(s)?	Quasi‐Gold Standard (only systematic reviews) DARE‐indexed systematic reviews: first 100 records of the database. ACP Journal Club: handsearch of 104.
B.7 How was each gold standard used?	Broad definition of Systematic Reviews. Methodological inclusion criteria for gold standards not reported.
B.8 Other observations.	To test internal validity
C. How did the researchers identify the search terms in their filter(s) (select all that apply)?
C.1 Adapted a published search strategy.	Not mentioned
C.2 Asked experts for suggestions of relevant terms.	Not mentioned
C.3 Used a database thesaurus.	Not mentioned
C.4 Statistical analysis of terms in a gold standard set of records (see B above).	Not mentioned
C.5 Extracted terms from the gold standard set of records (see B above).	Not mentioned
C.6 Extracted terms from some relevant records (but not a gold standard).	Not mentioned
C.7 Tick all types of search terms tested.	Text words (e.g. in title, abstract) Publication types
C.8 Include the citation of any adapted strategies.	Not mentioned
C.9 How were the (final) combination(s) of search terms selected?	Not reported
C.10 Were the search terms combined (using Boolean logic) in a way that is likely to retrieve the studies of interest?	Yes
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?	None
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?	No
D.3 Report sensitivity data (a single value, a range, ‘Unclear’* or ‘not reported’, as appropriate). *Please describe.	Not applicable
D.4 Report precision data (a single value, a range, ‘Unclear’* or ‘not reported’ as appropriate). *Please describe.	Not applicable
D.5 Report specificity data (a single value, a range, ‘Unclear’* or ‘not reported’ as appropriate). *Please describe.	Not applicable
D.6 Other performance measures reported.	Not applicable
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?	One
E.2 Describe the validation set(s) of records, including the interface.	The filter was combined with words on clinical topics to retrieve systematic reviews in MEDLINE(Pubmed)
E.3 On which validation set(s) was the filter tested?	2
E.4 Report sensitivity data for each validation set (a single value, a range or ‘Unclear’ or ‘not reported’, as appropriate).	Sensitivity (95%CI) DARE‐indexed systematic reviews: 93% (86% to 97%) ACP Journal Club: 97% (91% to 99%)
E.5 Report precision data for each validation set (report a single value, a range or ‘Unclear’ or ‘not reported’, as appropriate).	“Approximately 50% of the retrieved articles met the criteria for true positive in each of the three sample searches.”screening for colorectal cancer: 53% (30%–75%) thrombolytic therapy for venous thromboembolism: 54% (24%–82%) treatment of dementia: 50% (41%–60%)
E.6 Report specificity data for each validation set (a single value, a range or ‘Unclear’ or ‘not reported’, as appropriate).	Not reported
E.7 Other observations.	No
F. Limitations and comparisons.
F.1 Did the authors discuss any limitations to their research?	Yes, broad definition of systematic review (including consensus and guidelines).
F.2 Are there other potential limitations to this research that you have noticed?	Yes, Precision measures are not reported correctly. It is not clear if it was tested in the Gold Standard or in different set of articles.
F.3 Report any comparisons of the performance of the filter against other relevant published filters (sensitivity, precision, specificity or other measures).	No
F.4 Include the citations of any compared filters.	No
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?	Yes, There is an Appendix cited in the manuscript, but there is no link available and the appendix is not accesible.
G.5 Include references to related papers and/or other relevant material.	Not Included.
G.6 Other comments.	No