The use of subject headings varied in Embase and MEDLINE: An analysis of indexing across six subject areas

Abstract

Many bibliographic databases describe the content of a publication using a thesaurus. The vocabularies vary and the extent to which the databases apply them may also differ significantly. The aim of this study is to empirically explore the number of subject headings assigned to publications in two databases over time and to determine if publication characteristics are associated with the number of subject headings. Articles and reviews in MEDLINE and Embase from 1990 to 2019 assigned with one of the subject headings from six subject areas are included in this study. Each of the retrieved publications in Embase is matched with a similar publication in MEDLINE. Furthermore, multivariable linear regressions are used to explore the association of the number of subject headings in MEDLINE and Embase with six prespecified publication characteristics. The average number of assigned subject headings in MEDLINE is stable or even slightly decreasing over time. In Embase, the average number of assigned subject headings was stable until about 2000 where the average number increased dramatically during the next 3 years. Furthermore, linear regressions show that the average number of subject headings in MEDLINE and Embase is higher for publications in English, publications with longer abstract, recent publications and if it belongs to specific subject areas. However, reviews are assigned with more subject headings in Embase and fewer in MEDLINE. The implications of the results are discussed.

Keywords

Bibliographic databases Embase linear regression MEDLINE subject headings thesaurus

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Cooper

Hedges

Valentine

. The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 2019.

Higgins

Thomas

Chandler

et al. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions (Version 6.0, updated July 2019). London: Cochrane Training, 2019.

Holly

Salmond

Saimbert

. Comprehensive systematic review for advanced practice nursing. New York: Springer, 2016.

Aromataris

Munn

. Joanna Briggs Institute reviewer’s manual. Adelaide, SA, Australia: The Joanna Briggs, 2017.

Booth

Sutton

Papaioannou

. Systematic approaches to a successful literature review. 2nd ed. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, 2016.

Chu

. Information representation and retrieval in the digital age. 2nd ed. Medford, NJ: Published for the American Society for Information Science and Technology by Information Today, 2010.

Lancaster

. Indexing and abstracting in theory and practice. London: Library Association, 1991.

National Information Standards Organization. Guidelines for the construction, format, and management of monolingual controlled vocabularies. Baltimore, MD: NISO Press, 2005.

Losee

. Decisions in thesaurus construction and use. Inf Process Manag 2007; 43(4): 958–968.

10.

Jenuwine

Floyd

. Comparison of Medical Subject Headings and text-word searches in MEDLINE to retrieve studies on sleep in healthy individuals. J Med Libr Assoc 2004; 92(3): 349–353.

11.

Voorbij

. Keywords and subject descriptors: a comparison of subject search entries of books in the humanities and social sciences. J Doc 1998; 54(4): 466–476.

12.

Harpring

. Introduction to controlled vocabularies: terminology for art, architecture, and other cultural works. Los Angeles, CA: Getty Publications, 2010.

13.

Cleveland

. Introduction to indexing and abstracting. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, 2013.

14.

Gross

Taylor

Joudrey

. Still a lot to lose: the role of controlled vocabulary in keyword searching. Catalog Class Quart 2015; 53(1): 1–39.

15.

Sampson

McGowan

. Errors in search strategies were identified by type and frequency. J Clin Epidemiol 2006; 59(10): 1057–1063.

16.

Koffel

. Use of recommended search strategies in systematic reviews and the impact of librarian involvement: a cross-sectional survey of recent authors. PLoS ONE 2015; 10(5): e0125931.

17.

Franco

JVA

Garrote

Escobar Liquitay

et al. Identification of problems in search strategies in Cochrane Reviews. Res Synth Methods 2018; 9(3): 408–416.

18.

Salvador-Oliván

Marco-Cuenca

Arquero-Avilés

. Errors in search strategies used in systematic reviews and their effects on information retrieval. J Med Libr Assoc 2019; 107(2): 210.

19.

Aitchison

Bawden

Gilchrist

. Thesaurus construction and use: a practical manual. 4nd ed. London: Aslib, 2000.

20.

Higgins

Green

. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions (Version 5.1.0, updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011, wwwcochrane-handbook.org

21.

Wright

Golder

Lewis-Light

. What value is the CINAHL database when searching for systematic reviews of qualitative studies? Syst Rev 2015; 4: 104.

22.

Subirana

Sola

Garcia

et al. A nursing qualitative systematic review required MEDLINE and CINAHL for study identification. J Clin Epidemiol 2005; 58(1): 20–25.

23.

Bekhuis

Demner-Fushman

Crowley

. Comparative effectiveness research designs: an analysis of terms and coverage in Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) and Emtree. J Med Libr Assoc 2013; 101(2): 92–100.

24.

Volpato

ESN

Betini

Puga

et al. Strategies to optimize MEDLINE and EMBASE search strategies for anesthesiology systematic reviews: an experimental study. Sao Paulo Med J 2018; 136(2): 103–108.

25.

Elsevier R&D Solutions. A comparison of Emtree^® and MeSH^® [whitepaper]. Elsevier, 2015, https://supportcontent.elsevier.com/Support%20Hub/Embase/Files%20&%20Attachements/4685-Embase_White%20Paper_Comparison%20of%20Emtree%20and%20MeSH_July%202015.pdf (accessed May 2022).

26.

Premji

Ganshorn

. Can database-level MEDLINE exclusion filters in Embase and CINAHL be used to remove duplicate records without loss of relevant studies in systematic reviews? An exploratory study. J Can Health Libr Assoc 2020; 41(1): 3–15.

27.

Eriksen

Buck Christensen

Frandsen

. Embase er et centralt værktøj til medicinsk litteratursøgning. Ugeskrift Laeger 2016; 178(17): 1610–1613.

28.

Glanville

Kaunelis

Mensinkai

et al. Pruning Emtree: does focusing Embase subject headings impact search strategy precision and sensitivity? Ottawa, ON Canada: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health, 2015.

29.

Wilkins

Gillies

Davies

. EMBASE versus MEDLINE for family medicine searches: can MEDLINE searches find the forest or a tree? Can Fam Physician 2005; 51: 848–849.

30.

Losee

. A performance model of the length and number of subject headings and index phrases. Knowl Organ 2004; 31(4): 245–251.

31.

Banks

. Does the number of subject headings on a bibliographic record affect circulation intensity? Tech Serv Q 2004; 21(3): 17–24.

32.

Tibbo

. The EPIC struggle: subject retrieval from large bibliographic databases. Am Arch 1994; 57(2): 310–326.

33.

Hjorland

Nielsen

. Subject access points in electronic retrieval. Annu Rev Inform Sci Technol 2001; 35: 249–298.

34.

Elsevier. Embase Indexing Guide 2021: A comprehensive guide to Embase indexing policy; 2021. Accessed June 20, 2022, https://www.elsevier.com/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/901693/Embase-Indexing-guide-2021.pdf

35.

U.S. National Library of Medicine. Introduction to MeSH (History of MeSH). https://www.nlm.nih.gov/mesh/intro_preface.html#pref_hist

36.

Suarez-Almazor

Belseck

Homik

et al. Identifying clinical trials in the medical literature with electronic databases: MEDLINE alone is not enough. Control Clin Trials 2000; 21(5): 476–487.

37.

Minozzi

Pistotti

Forni

. Searching for rehabilitation articles on MEDLINE and EMBASE: an example with cross-over design. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2000; 81(6): 720–722.

38.

Betran

Say

Gulmezoglu

et al. Effectiveness of different databases in identifying studies for systematic reviews: experience from the WHO systematic review of maternal morbidity and mortality. BMC Med Res Methodol 2005; 5(1): 6.

39.

Burns

Nix

Shapiro

et al. MEDLINE search retrieval issues: a longitudinal query analysis of five vendor platforms. PLoS ONE 2021; 16(5): e0234221.

40.

Ratner

. The correlation coefficient: its values range between +1/−1, or do they? J Target Meas Anal Market 2009; 17(2): 139–142.

41.

Pieper

Puljak

. Language restrictions in systematic reviews should not be imposed in the search strategy but in the eligibility criteria if necessary. J Clin Epidemiol 2021; 132: 146–147.

42.

Parlak

Uysal

. On classification of abstracts obtained from medical journals. J Inf Sci 2020; 46(5): 648–663.

43.

Kim

Lee

. Comparison of length limits and the actual length of abstracts in pharmacology, oncology, and neurology journals listed in PubMed. Sci Ed 2021; 8(1): 39–46.

44.

Liu

Huan

Gimenez-Galanes

. What makes an effective abstract in sport science? J Phys Educ Sport 2013; 13(1): 53–56.

45.

Hartley

Betts

. Common weaknesses in traditional abstracts in the social sciences. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol 2009; 60(10): 2010–2018.

46.

Mork

Aronson

Demner-Fushman

. 12 years on – is the NLM medical text indexer still useful and relevant? J Biomed Semantics 2017; 8(1): 8.

47.

Dai

You

et al. FullMeSH: improving large-scale MeSH indexing with full text. Bioinformatics 2020; 36(5): 1533–1541.

48.

Sanyal

Bhowmick

Das

. A review of author name disambiguation techniques for the PubMed bibliographic database. J Inf Sci 2021; 47(2): 227–254.

49.

Chen

Huang

Yan

. Detecting the association of health problems in consumer-level medical text. J Inf Sci 2018; 44(1): 3–14.