# Developing and validating infant hedges for PubMed and Ovid MEDLINE: a Medical Library Association Pediatric Librarians Caucus initiative

## TL;DR

This paper describes the development and validation of search filters for finding articles about infants in PubMed and Ovid MEDLINE.

## Contribution

The study introduces and evaluates new infant-specific search hedges for improved clinical and evidence-based searching.

## Key findings

- The simple keyword hedge performed as well as more complex hedges in terms of sensitivity and specificity.
- The built-in MeSH-based filter had higher specificity but lower sensitivity compared to the new hedges.
- For evidence synthesis, more sensitive hedges are recommended over the filter.

## Abstract

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.