Asset Details
MbrlCatalogueTitleDetail
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Developing and validating infant hedges for PubMed and Ovid MEDLINE: a Medical Library Association Pediatric Librarians Caucus initiative
by
Hinrichs, Rachel J
, Bogucka, Roxanne
, Willis, Christine
, Brennan, Emily A
, Kysh, Lynn
, Baker, Zoë
in
Humans
/ Infant
/ Infant, Newborn
/ Information Storage and Retrieval - methods
/ Librarians
/ Libraries, Medical
/ Library Associations
/ Medical Subject Headings
/ MEDLINE
/ Pediatrics
/ PubMed
/ Sensitivity and Specificity
2025
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
You are currently in the queue to collect this book. You will be notified once it is your turn to collect the book.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Developing and validating infant hedges for PubMed and Ovid MEDLINE: a Medical Library Association Pediatric Librarians Caucus initiative
by
Hinrichs, Rachel J
, Bogucka, Roxanne
, Willis, Christine
, Brennan, Emily A
, Kysh, Lynn
, Baker, Zoë
in
Humans
/ Infant
/ Infant, Newborn
/ Information Storage and Retrieval - methods
/ Librarians
/ Libraries, Medical
/ Library Associations
/ Medical Subject Headings
/ MEDLINE
/ Pediatrics
/ PubMed
/ Sensitivity and Specificity
2025
Oops! Something went wrong.
While trying to remove the title from your shelf something went wrong :( Kindly try again later!
Do you wish to request the book?
Developing and validating infant hedges for PubMed and Ovid MEDLINE: a Medical Library Association Pediatric Librarians Caucus initiative
by
Hinrichs, Rachel J
, Bogucka, Roxanne
, Willis, Christine
, Brennan, Emily A
, Kysh, Lynn
, Baker, Zoë
in
Humans
/ Infant
/ Infant, Newborn
/ Information Storage and Retrieval - methods
/ Librarians
/ Libraries, Medical
/ Library Associations
/ Medical Subject Headings
/ MEDLINE
/ Pediatrics
/ PubMed
/ Sensitivity and Specificity
2025
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Developing and validating infant hedges for PubMed and Ovid MEDLINE: a Medical Library Association Pediatric Librarians Caucus initiative
Journal Article
Developing and validating infant hedges for PubMed and Ovid MEDLINE: a Medical Library Association Pediatric Librarians Caucus initiative
2025
Request Book From Autostore
and Choose the Collection Method
Overview
To support evidence synthesis and clinical searching, a team of librarians developed and validated infant age (birth to 23 months) search hedges for PubMed (National Library of Medicine) and Medline (OVID).
We developed four sensitive hedges by selecting terms that refer to infants. Three of the hedges had identical MeSH terms and keywords but used different field tags, and the fourth was a simple keyword hedge. We compared our hedges to the built-in MeSH-based infant filter. We used relative recall calculations to validate each hedge's performance against a gold standard reference set.
In PubMed the similarly structured hedges performed in a range of 83.2%-83.8% sensitivity and 88.2%-89.7% specificity. The simple keyword hedge performed with an 83.5% sensitivity and 89.7% specificity. The filter generated a 70.1% sensitivity and 96.2% specificity. Similarly, in Ovid Medline, the set of similar hedges performed in a range of 82.9%-83.6% sensitivity and 88.1%-89.4% specificity. The simple keyword hedge performed with an 82.9% sensitivity and 90.8% specificity. The filter generated a 69.6% sensitivity and 96.2% specificity.
The variation in field tags did not provide a significant difference in the areas of sensitivity and specificity. The filter performed as expected with higher specificity rather than sensitivity. The simple keyword hedge performed better than anticipated with comparable sensitivity and specificity of the more complex hedges. When searching for infant population articles, the simple keyword search and filter work well for quick, clinical searching. For evidence synthesis, we recommend using one of the more sensitive infant hedges.
MBRLCatalogueRelatedBooks
Related Items
Related Items
We currently cannot retrieve any items related to this title. Kindly check back at a later time.
This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website.