You have full text access to this OnlineOpen article

The number needed to retrieve: a practically useful measure of information retrieval?

  1. Andrew Booth

Article first published online: 11 AUG 2006

DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-1842.2006.00663.x

Issue

Health Information & Libraries Journal

Health Information & Libraries Journal

Volume 23, Issue 3, pages 229–232, September 2006

Additional Information

How to Cite

Booth, A. (2006), The number needed to retrieve: a practically useful measure of information retrieval?. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 23: 229–232. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-1842.2006.00663.x

Publication History

  1. Issue published online: 11 AUG 2006
  2. Article first published online: 11 AUG 2006

SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

ARTICLE TOOLS

View Full Article (HTML) Get PDF (58K)

References

  • 1
    Fahey, T., Griffiths, S. & Peters, T. J. Evidence-based purchasing: understanding results of clinical trials and systematic reviews. British Medical Journal 1995, 311, 1056–9.
  • 2
    Cook, R. J. & Sackett, D. L. The number needed to treat: a clinically useful measure of treatment effect. British Medical Journal 1995, 310, 452–4.
  • 3
    Harris, M. R. The librarian's roles in the systematic review process: a case study. Journal of the Medical Library Association 2005, 93, 81–7.
  • 4
    Royle, P. & Milne, R. Literature searching for randomized controlled trials used in Cochrane reviews: rapid versus exhaustive searches. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 2003, 19, 591–603.
  • 5
    Robinson, J. G. & Gehle, J. L. Medical research and the Institutional Review Board: The librarian's role in human subject testing. Reference Services Review 2005, 33, 20–4.
  • 6
    Bernat, J. L. Medical futility: definition, determination, and disputes in critical care. Neurocritical Care 2005, 2, 198–205.
  • 7
    Turk, D. C. Statistical significance and clinical significance are not synonyms! Clinical Journal of Pain 2000, 16, 185–7.
  • 8
    Spoor, P., Airey, M., Bennett, C., Greensill, J. & Williams, R. Use of the capture–recapture technique to evaluate the completeness of systematic literature searches. British Medical Journal 1996, 313, 342–3.
  • 9
    Greenhalgh, T. & Peacock, R. Effectiveness and efficiency of search methods in systematic reviews of complex evidence: audit of primary sources. British Medical Journal 2005, 331, 1064–5.
  • 10
    Allen, I. E. & Olkin, I. Estimating time to conduct a meta-analysis from number of citations retrieved. Journal of the American Medical Association 1999, 282, 634–5.
  • 11
    Wade, C. A., Turner, H. M., Rothstein, H. R. & Lavenberg, J. G. Information retrieval and the role of the information specialist in producing high-quality systematic reviews in the social, behavioural and education sciences. Evidence and Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate and Practice 2006, 2, 89–108.
  • 12
    Booth, A. Evidence-based perspectives on information access and retrieval. In: Booth, A. & Brice, A. (eds). Evidence-Based Practice for Information Professionals: a Handbook. London: Facet Publishing, 2004: 231–46.
View Full Article (HTML) Get PDF (58K)