Table 3

Final strategies for CINAHL (performances of the search strategies in the validation gold standard are presented in parentheses)

SensitivityPrecisionSpecificitySensitivity*precisionNo of articles to read
The three strategies with the greatest sensitivity
CINAHL Strategy S1 [(Tx Health* OR Tx Care* OR Tx Prevent*) AND (Tx Safe* OR Tx Err*) AND (MH “Child” OR Tx Patient* or Tx Human)] OR MH “Health Care Errors+”.100.00% (100%)18.30% (18.71%)73.23% (89.35%)18.30% (18.71%)5 (5)
CINAHL Strategy S2 (Tx Health* or Tx Care* or Tx Prevent*) AND (Tx Safe* or Tx Err*)98.21% (96.15%)17.41% (17.06%)72.06% (88.55%)17.09% (16.41%)6 (6)
CINAHL Strategy S3 [(Tx Health* OR Tx Care* OR Tx Prevent*) AND (Tx Safe* OR Tx Err*)] AND (MH “Child” OR Tx Patient* OR Tx Human).96.43% (86.54%)18.06% (18.37%)73.77% (90.58%)17.42% (15.89%)6 (5)
The three strategies with the greatest precision
CINAHL Strategy P1 Tx Harm* AND Tx Event*14.29% (9.62%)61.54% (83.33%)99.46% (99.95%)8.79% (8.01%)2 (1)
CINAHL Strategy P2 Tx Err* AND Tx Event*39.29% (36.54%)55.00% (59.38%)98.07% (99.39%)21.61% (19.28%)2 (2)
CINAHL Strategy P3 [(Tx Harm* AND Tx Event*) OR MH “Risk Management+”] OR (MH “Child” OR Tx Patient* OR Tx Human)35.71% (36.54%)50.00% (52.78%)97.86% (99.20%)17.86% (19.28%)2 (2)
The three strategies with the best combination of sensitivity and precision
CINAHL Strategy SP1 MH “Health Care Errors+”75.00% (90.38%)43.30% (38.84%)94.11% (96.51%)32.47% (35.11%)2 (3)
CINAHL Strategy SP2 [([Tx Err* AND (Tx Health* OR Tx Care* OR Tx Prevent*)] OR MH “Risk Management+”) AND (MH “Child” OR Tx Patient* OR Tx Human)]OR MH “Health Care Errors+”.85.71% (98. 08%)36.36% (33.77%)91.01% (95.29%)31.17% (33.13%)3 (3)
CINAHL Strategy SP3 [([Tx Err* AND (Tx Health* OR Tx Care* OR Tx Prevent*)] OR MH “Risk Management+”) AND (MH “Child” OR Tx Patient* OR Tx Human)]82.14% (84. 62%)37.10% (37.29%)91.65% (96. 51%)30.47% (31.55%)3 (3)
Validation
Strategy derived from Westwood et al in CINAHL94.64% (100.00%)26.37% (19.62%)84.15% (89.97%)24.96% (19.62%)4 (5)