My colleague Chris has converted the high dose search into a low dose search. Thanks, Chris!
((low adj3 dos*) or (low-dos*) or (minim* adj3 dos*) or (subtherapeutic dos*) or (small adj3 dos*) or (decreas* adj2 dos*) or (reduc* adj2 dos*) or (dos* adj2 de-escalation*) or (dos* adj2 deescalation*) or (dos* adj3 taper*) or (taper-off)).ti,ab
It can also be useful to find out what is considered a low dose, and then search for the specific amount. This will depend on the drug/intervention in question.
Also helpful is: Dose-Response Relationship, Drug/
Tuesday, February 26, 2019
Friday, February 22, 2019
New treatments for...
So there are three main strategies.
Strategy 1: New and emerging:
"[The MeSH for the Disease here]/therapy"[Majr]
AND
Review[ptyp] OR Guideline[ptyp] OR "Systematic Review"[ptyp] OR "Meta-analysis"[ptyp]
AND
new[title] OR novel[title] OR emerging[title] OR advances[title] OR recent*[title] OR future[title] OR target*[title] OR investigational[title] OR advancement*[title]
NOT
(("Animals"[Mesh] NOT "Humans"[Mesh]) OR "Mice, Transgenic"[Mesh] OR "Transgenes"[Mesh] OR "Models, Animal"[Mesh] OR veterinary[subheading] OR "Xenograft Model Antitumor Assays"[MeSH])
AND
(limit by year to recent - exactly how many years will depend on the disorder in question.)
The problem with new and emerging is that they might not be approved yet. And usually, if you can't use them right now, nobody cares.
Strategy 2: Recent reviews.
Which is basically the above search without the search line starting with "new"[title], and a much shorter year range.
Strategy 3: PreMedline reviews
[keywords for the disease]
AND
inprocess[sb] OR indatareview[sb] OR publisher[sb]
AND
new[title] OR novel[title] OR emerging[title] OR advances[title] OR recent*[title] OR future[title] OR target*[title] OR investigational[title] OR advancement*[title]
AND/NOT
review*[tiab] OR systematic*[tiab] OR meta-analy*[tiab] OR metaanaly*[tiab] OR guideline*[tiab] OR consensus[tiab] OR guidance[tiab]
For the review keywords, I use them to identify the most likely articles (although there will be some red herrings!, and then go back and use NOT to remove them and look quickly through the other articles to see if I missed anything. If you have a bibliographic manager, you might be able to do this with its search feature instead, if you prefer.
Strategy 4: Recent RCTs.
I recommend going through the results of the above first, and then if you're still short, you can try new RCTs.
Problem is separating the usual treatments from the novel ones. So far, the best guidance for this has come from the articles found by the above searches, but it's kind of a paradox because if you found many of those, you probably won't need to look for RCTs. One strategy that is not effective is looking in Point of Care tools for more-established treatments - I thought that POC tools might be mostly recommending more established treatments, but it turns out that they (or at least, the one I was using, Best Practice) are kept very current and data about many of the "new and novel" treatments were already incorporated into the Approaches section - the Emerging section was even more updated!
Strategy 1: New and emerging:
"[The MeSH for the Disease here]/therapy"[Majr]
AND
Review[ptyp] OR Guideline[ptyp] OR "Systematic Review"[ptyp] OR "Meta-analysis"[ptyp]
AND
new[title] OR novel[title] OR emerging[title] OR advances[title] OR recent*[title] OR future[title] OR target*[title] OR investigational[title] OR advancement*[title]
NOT
(("Animals"[Mesh] NOT "Humans"[Mesh]) OR "Mice, Transgenic"[Mesh] OR "Transgenes"[Mesh] OR "Models, Animal"[Mesh] OR veterinary[subheading] OR "Xenograft Model Antitumor Assays"[MeSH])
AND
(limit by year to recent - exactly how many years will depend on the disorder in question.)
The problem with new and emerging is that they might not be approved yet. And usually, if you can't use them right now, nobody cares.
Strategy 2: Recent reviews.
Which is basically the above search without the search line starting with "new"[title], and a much shorter year range.
Strategy 3: PreMedline reviews
[keywords for the disease]
AND
inprocess[sb] OR indatareview[sb] OR publisher[sb]
AND
new[title] OR novel[title] OR emerging[title] OR advances[title] OR recent*[title] OR future[title] OR target*[title] OR investigational[title] OR advancement*[title]
AND/NOT
review*[tiab] OR systematic*[tiab] OR meta-analy*[tiab] OR metaanaly*[tiab] OR guideline*[tiab] OR consensus[tiab] OR guidance[tiab]
For the review keywords, I use them to identify the most likely articles (although there will be some red herrings!, and then go back and use NOT to remove them and look quickly through the other articles to see if I missed anything. If you have a bibliographic manager, you might be able to do this with its search feature instead, if you prefer.
Strategy 4: Recent RCTs.
I recommend going through the results of the above first, and then if you're still short, you can try new RCTs.
Problem is separating the usual treatments from the novel ones. So far, the best guidance for this has come from the articles found by the above searches, but it's kind of a paradox because if you found many of those, you probably won't need to look for RCTs. One strategy that is not effective is looking in Point of Care tools for more-established treatments - I thought that POC tools might be mostly recommending more established treatments, but it turns out that they (or at least, the one I was using, Best Practice) are kept very current and data about many of the "new and novel" treatments were already incorporated into the Approaches section - the Emerging section was even more updated!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
