Correction

doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2019.664

VOLUME 104

104(1) January, page 49

El Sherif R, Pluye P, Gore G, Granikov V, Hong QN. Performance of a mixed filter to identify relevant studies for mixed studies reviews. J Med Libr Assoc. 2016 Jan;104(1):47–51. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.104.1.007.

The totals in Table 1, Number of relevant records retrieved and Number of nonrelevant records not retrieved by the filter, should be 1,776 and 1,398, rather than 1,176 and 1,396, respectively. The corresponding total number of records identified in the study should be 4,546, rather than 4,547.

Corrected Table 1 Performance of the mixed filter

Journal	*Number of relevant records retrieved (a)**	*Number of relevant records not retrieved by filter (b)**	*Number of nonrelevant records retrieved by the filter (c)**	*Number of nonrelevant records not retrieved by the filter (d)**	Precision (%)	Sensitivity (%)	Specificity (%)
Discipline 1: Primary Care
High IF:
Ann Fam Med	294	21	78	254	79.0%	93.3%	76.5%
Low IF:
J Fam Pract	23	2	492	402	4.5%	92.0%	45.0%
Discipline 2: Public Health and Epidemiology
High IF:
Int J Epi	488	9	317	495	60.6%	98.2%	61.0%
Low IF:
Palliative Med	291	26	162	142	64.2%	91.8%	46.2%
Discipline 3: Medical Informatics
High IF:
Overall
6 included journals	1,776	208	1,164	1,398	60.4%	89.5%	54.5%

IF=impact factor.
*Legend:
High precision ≥50%=a:(a+c)
High sensitivity ≥80%=a:(a+b)
High specificity ≥50%=d:(c+d)
a=relevant records retrieved; b=relevant records not retrieved; c=nonrelevant records retrieved; d= nonrelevant records not retrieved.

(Return to Top)

Articles in this journal are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

This journal is published by the University Library System of the University of Pittsburgh as part of its D-Scribe Digital Publishing Program and is cosponsored by the University of Pittsburgh Press.

Journal of the Medical Library Association, VOLUME 107, NUMBER 2, April 2019