- • TMT searches reduced strategy development time compared to UP searches.
- • TMT searches were slightly less sensitive for simple and complex topics.
- • Studied freely available TMTs to increase real world SR applicability.
- • TMTs useful adjuncts when timeliness is more important than comprehensiveness.
What this adds to what is known?
- • Comparative TMT functionality studies are needed to develop “best practices.”
What should change now?
1. Hausner et al. Point 1: selection and application of text-mining tools
2. Hausner et al. Point 2: experience with TMTs
3. Hausner et al. Point 3: test set for the text analysis
4. Hausner et al. Point 4: publication of further information
- Prospective comparison of search strategies for systematic reviews: an objective approach yielded higher sensitivity than a conceptual one.J Clin Epidemiol. 2016; 77: 118-124
- Development of search strategies for systematic reviews: validation showed the noninferiority of the objective approach.J Clin Epidemiol. 2015; 68: 191-199
- Routine development of objectively derived search strategies.Syst Rev. 2012; 1: 19
- A prospective comparison of evidence synthesis search strategies developed with and without text-mining tools.J Clin Epidemiol. 2021; 139: 350-360
- A prospective comparison of evidence synthesis search strategies developed with and without text-mining tools.Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US), Rockville (MD)2021
- Development of literature search strategies for evidence syntheses: pros and cons of incorporating text mining tools and objective approaches.BMJ Evid Based Med. 2022; 28 (bmjebm-2021-111892)
- A test collection for evaluating retrieval of studies for inclusion in systematic reviews.SIGIR. 2017; 17: 1237-1240
Funding: This project was funded under contract no. 290-2017-00003C from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), United States Department of Health and Human Services. The authors are solely responsible for its content. Statements should not be construed as endorsement by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality or the United States Department of Health and Human Services.
Conflict of interest: The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this article.