循证实践:扩大搜索范围,为系统综述寻找材料。

D Helmer, I Savoie, C Green, A Kazanjian
{"title":"循证实践:扩大搜索范围,为系统综述寻找材料。","authors":"D Helmer, I Savoie, C Green, A Kazanjian","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Cochrane-style systematic reviews increasingly require the participation of librarians. Guidelines on the appropriate search strategy to use for systematic reviews have been proposed. However, research evidence supporting these recommendations is limited.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study investigates the effectiveness of various systematic search methods used to uncover randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for systematic reviews. Effectiveness is defined as the proportion of relevant material uncovered for the systematic review using extended systematic review search methods. The following extended systematic search methods are evaluated: searching subject-specific or specialized databases (including trial registries), hand searching, scanning reference lists, and communicating personally.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Two systematic review projects were prospectively monitored regarding the method used to identify items as well as the type of items retrieved. The proportion of RCTs identified by each systematic search method was calculated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The extended systematic search methods uncovered 29.2% of all items retrieved for the systematic reviews. The search of specialized databases was the most effective method, followed by scanning of reference lists, communicating personally, and hand searching. Although the number of items identified through hand searching was small, these unique items would otherwise have been missed.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Extended systematic search methods are effective tools for uncovering material for the systematic review. The quality of the items uncovered has yet to be assessed and will be key in evaluating the value of the systematic search methods.</p>","PeriodicalId":72483,"journal":{"name":"Bulletin of the Medical Library Association","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2001-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC57963/pdf/i0025-7338-089-04-0346.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evidence-based practice: extending the search to find material for the systematic review.\",\"authors\":\"D Helmer, I Savoie, C Green, A Kazanjian\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Cochrane-style systematic reviews increasingly require the participation of librarians. Guidelines on the appropriate search strategy to use for systematic reviews have been proposed. However, research evidence supporting these recommendations is limited.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study investigates the effectiveness of various systematic search methods used to uncover randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for systematic reviews. Effectiveness is defined as the proportion of relevant material uncovered for the systematic review using extended systematic review search methods. The following extended systematic search methods are evaluated: searching subject-specific or specialized databases (including trial registries), hand searching, scanning reference lists, and communicating personally.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Two systematic review projects were prospectively monitored regarding the method used to identify items as well as the type of items retrieved. The proportion of RCTs identified by each systematic search method was calculated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The extended systematic search methods uncovered 29.2% of all items retrieved for the systematic reviews. The search of specialized databases was the most effective method, followed by scanning of reference lists, communicating personally, and hand searching. Although the number of items identified through hand searching was small, these unique items would otherwise have been missed.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Extended systematic search methods are effective tools for uncovering material for the systematic review. The quality of the items uncovered has yet to be assessed and will be key in evaluating the value of the systematic search methods.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":72483,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Bulletin of the Medical Library Association\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2001-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC57963/pdf/i0025-7338-089-04-0346.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Bulletin of the Medical Library Association\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bulletin of the Medical Library Association","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:Cochrane 式的系统综述越来越多地需要图书馆员的参与。关于系统综述应采用的适当检索策略的指南已经提出。然而,支持这些建议的研究证据却很有限:本研究调查了用于系统综述的随机对照试验(RCT)的各种系统检索方法的有效性。有效性的定义是使用扩展的系统综述检索方法为系统综述发现的相关材料所占的比例。我们对以下扩展系统性检索方法进行了评估:检索特定主题或专门数据库(包括试验登记册)、手工检索、扫描参考文献列表以及亲自沟通:方法:对两个系统综述项目进行了前瞻性监测,监测内容涉及用于识别项目的方法以及检索到的项目类型。计算了每种系统性检索方法所发现的 RCT 的比例:结果:在系统综述检索到的所有项目中,扩展的系统检索方法发现了 29.2% 的项目。专业数据库检索是最有效的方法,其次是扫描参考文献目录、个人交流和手工检索。虽然通过手工检索发现的项目数量不多,但这些独特的项目如果不采用这种方法就会被遗漏:结论:扩展的系统检索方法是为系统综述发掘材料的有效工具。所发现项目的质量还有待评估,这将是评价系统搜索方法价值的关键。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Evidence-based practice: extending the search to find material for the systematic review.

Background: Cochrane-style systematic reviews increasingly require the participation of librarians. Guidelines on the appropriate search strategy to use for systematic reviews have been proposed. However, research evidence supporting these recommendations is limited.

Objective: This study investigates the effectiveness of various systematic search methods used to uncover randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for systematic reviews. Effectiveness is defined as the proportion of relevant material uncovered for the systematic review using extended systematic review search methods. The following extended systematic search methods are evaluated: searching subject-specific or specialized databases (including trial registries), hand searching, scanning reference lists, and communicating personally.

Methods: Two systematic review projects were prospectively monitored regarding the method used to identify items as well as the type of items retrieved. The proportion of RCTs identified by each systematic search method was calculated.

Results: The extended systematic search methods uncovered 29.2% of all items retrieved for the systematic reviews. The search of specialized databases was the most effective method, followed by scanning of reference lists, communicating personally, and hand searching. Although the number of items identified through hand searching was small, these unique items would otherwise have been missed.

Conclusions: Extended systematic search methods are effective tools for uncovering material for the systematic review. The quality of the items uncovered has yet to be assessed and will be key in evaluating the value of the systematic search methods.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The President's Page Research methodology. FORTISSIMO! Binding. And Now For Something Completely Different
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1