Re:Zen Magnets: 6 Years of Battle End in Victory
by thomasfedb on Thursday June 21, 2018 @09:29PM
(#17370592)
Which query are you referring to? It's important to understand that the first step in a systematic review is to identify all the potentially relevant literature (the "search"), only after which are the studies found screened for inclusion. We're conservative in the direction of over-inclusion during the "search", but in the opposite direction during the "screen".
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Zen Magnets: 6 Years of Battle End in Victory
by romwell on Thursday June 21, 2018 @09:57PM
(#17370705)
We - are you one of the authors? Perhaps you can clarify the following paragraph from [1], page 8:
>Inclusion Criteria and Variable Classification:
>Subjects from 0-17 years old were included using a primary search term for diagnosis of “ingested object” from the time period of 2002-2015. Cases of ingested objects were classified as “suspected magnet ingestion” (SMI) if the term “magnet” appeared anywhere in the narrative section of the database.
Where's the screening part you mention? I didn't find anywhere that the inclusion criteria implied that magnets have actually been ingested - or that the results were filtered in any way other than a keyword search.
E.g.: "Child ingested a marble, parent worries that it could have been a magnet" would pass this inclusion criterion.