Improving the translation of search strategies using the polyglot search translator : A randomized controlled trial
Clark, Justin Michael, Sanders, Sharon, Carter, Matthew, Honeyman, David, Cleo, Gina, Auld, Yvonne, Booth, Debbie, Condron, Patrick, Dalais, Christine, Bateup, Sarah, Linthwaite, Bronwyn, May, Nikki, Munn, Jo, Ramsay, Lindy, Rickett, Kirsty, Rutter, Cameron, Smith, Angela, Sondergeld, Peter, Wallin, Margie, ... Beller, Elaine. (2020). Improving the translation of search strategies using the polyglot search translator : A randomized controlled trial. Journal of the Medical Library Association. 108(2), pp. 195-207. https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2020.834
|Authors||Clark, Justin Michael, Sanders, Sharon, Carter, Matthew, Honeyman, David, Cleo, Gina, Auld, Yvonne, Booth, Debbie, Condron, Patrick, Dalais, Christine, Bateup, Sarah, Linthwaite, Bronwyn, May, Nikki, Munn, Jo, Ramsay, Lindy, Rickett, Kirsty, Rutter, Cameron, Smith, Angela, Sondergeld, Peter, Wallin, Margie, Jones, Mark and Beller, Elaine|
Background: Searching for studies to include in a systematic review (SR) is a time- and labor-intensive process with searches of multiple databases recommended. To reduce the time spent translating search strings across databases, a tool called the Polyglot Search Translator (PST) was developed. The authors evaluated whether using the PST as a search translation aid reduces the time required to translate search strings without increasing errors.
Methods: In a randomized trial, twenty participants were randomly allocated ten database search strings and then randomly assigned to translate five with the assistance of the PST (PST-A method) and five without the assistance of the PST (manual method). We compared the time taken to translate search strings, the number of errors made, and how close the number of references retrieved by a translated search was to the number retrieved by a reference standard translation.
Results: Sixteen participants performed 174 translations using the PST-A method and 192 translations using the manual method. The mean time taken to translate a search string with the PST-A method was 31 minutes versus 45 minutes by the manual method (mean difference: 14 minutes). The mean number of errors made per translation by the PST-A method was 8.6 versus 14.6 by the manual method. Large variation in the number of references retrieved makes results for this outcome unreliable, although the number of references retrieved by the PST-A method was closer to the reference standard translation than the manual method.
Conclusion: When used to assist with translating search strings across databases, the PST can increase the speed of translation without increasing errors. Errors in search translations can still be a problem, and search specialists should be aware of this.
|Keywords||automation; systematic reviews; search strategies; databases|
|Journal||Journal of the Medical Library Association|
|Journal citation||108 (2), pp. 195-207|
|Publisher||Medical Library Association|
|Digital Object Identifier (DOI)||https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2020.834|
|Open access||Published as ‘gold’ (paid) open access|
|Research or scholarly||Research|
|Funder||Australian Research Council (ARC)|
File Access Level
|Publication process dates|
|Deposited||26 Aug 2021|
|ARC Funded Research||This output has been funded, wholly or partially, under the Australian Research Council Act 2001|
|License: CC BY|
|File access level: Open|
1views this month
0downloads this month