优化文献检索:Medline和Embase系统综述中纳入参考文献的覆盖范围。

IF 2.9 4区 医学 Q1 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE Journal of the Medical Library Association Pub Date : 2023-04-21 DOI:10.5195/jmla.2023.1482
Marita Heintz, Gyri Hval, Ragnhild Agathe Tornes, Nataliya Byelyey, Elisabet Hafstad, Gunn Eva Næss, Miriam Bakkeli
{"title":"优化文献检索:Medline和Embase系统综述中纳入参考文献的覆盖范围。","authors":"Marita Heintz,&nbsp;Gyri Hval,&nbsp;Ragnhild Agathe Tornes,&nbsp;Nataliya Byelyey,&nbsp;Elisabet Hafstad,&nbsp;Gunn Eva Næss,&nbsp;Miriam Bakkeli","doi":"10.5195/jmla.2023.1482","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The aim of this study was to investigate if the included references in a set of completed systematic reviews are indexed in Ovid MEDLINE and Ovid Embase, and how many references would be missed if we were to constrict our literature searches to one of these sources, or the two databases in combination.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a cross-sectional study where we searched for each included reference (n = 4,709) in 274 reviews produced by the Norwegian Institute of Public Health to find out if the references were indexed in the respective databases. The data was recorded in an Excel spreadsheet where we calculated the indexing rate. The reviews were sorted into eight categories to see if the indexing rate differs from subject to subject.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The indexing rate in MEDLINE (86.6%) was slightly lower than in Embase (88.2%). Without the MEDLINE records in Embase, the indexing rate in Embase was 71.8%. The highest indexing rate was achieved by combining both databases (90.2%). The indexing rate was highest in the category \"Physical health - treatment\" (97.4%). The category \"Welfare\" had the lowest indexing rate (58.9%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our data reveals that 9.8% of the references are not indexed in either database. Furthermore, in 5% of the reviews, the indexing rate was 50% or lower.</p>","PeriodicalId":47690,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Medical Library Association","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10259622/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Optimizing the literature search: coverage of included references in systematic reviews in Medline and Embase.\",\"authors\":\"Marita Heintz,&nbsp;Gyri Hval,&nbsp;Ragnhild Agathe Tornes,&nbsp;Nataliya Byelyey,&nbsp;Elisabet Hafstad,&nbsp;Gunn Eva Næss,&nbsp;Miriam Bakkeli\",\"doi\":\"10.5195/jmla.2023.1482\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The aim of this study was to investigate if the included references in a set of completed systematic reviews are indexed in Ovid MEDLINE and Ovid Embase, and how many references would be missed if we were to constrict our literature searches to one of these sources, or the two databases in combination.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a cross-sectional study where we searched for each included reference (n = 4,709) in 274 reviews produced by the Norwegian Institute of Public Health to find out if the references were indexed in the respective databases. The data was recorded in an Excel spreadsheet where we calculated the indexing rate. The reviews were sorted into eight categories to see if the indexing rate differs from subject to subject.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The indexing rate in MEDLINE (86.6%) was slightly lower than in Embase (88.2%). Without the MEDLINE records in Embase, the indexing rate in Embase was 71.8%. The highest indexing rate was achieved by combining both databases (90.2%). The indexing rate was highest in the category \\\"Physical health - treatment\\\" (97.4%). The category \\\"Welfare\\\" had the lowest indexing rate (58.9%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our data reveals that 9.8% of the references are not indexed in either database. Furthermore, in 5% of the reviews, the indexing rate was 50% or lower.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47690,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of the Medical Library Association\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-04-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10259622/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of the Medical Library Association\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2023.1482\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the Medical Library Association","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2023.1482","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:本研究的目的是探讨一组已完成的系统综述中纳入的文献是否在Ovid MEDLINE和Ovid Embase中被索引,以及如果我们将文献检索限制在这两个数据库中的一个或两个数据库的组合中,会遗漏多少文献。方法:我们进行了一项横断面研究,在挪威公共卫生研究所发表的274篇综述中检索每一篇纳入的文献(n = 4,709),以确定这些文献是否在各自的数据库中被索引。数据记录在Excel电子表格中,我们计算了索引率。这些评论被分成八类,以观察不同主题的索引率是否不同。结果:MEDLINE检索率为86.6%,Embase检索率为88.2%;Embase中没有MEDLINE记录,Embase的标引率为71.8%。合并两种数据库的检索率最高(90.2%)。索引率最高的类别是“身体健康-治疗”(97.4%)。“福利”类别的索引率最低(58.9%)。结论:我们的数据显示,9.8%的文献在两个数据库中均未被索引。此外,在5%的评论中,索引率为50%或更低。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Optimizing the literature search: coverage of included references in systematic reviews in Medline and Embase.

Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate if the included references in a set of completed systematic reviews are indexed in Ovid MEDLINE and Ovid Embase, and how many references would be missed if we were to constrict our literature searches to one of these sources, or the two databases in combination.

Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study where we searched for each included reference (n = 4,709) in 274 reviews produced by the Norwegian Institute of Public Health to find out if the references were indexed in the respective databases. The data was recorded in an Excel spreadsheet where we calculated the indexing rate. The reviews were sorted into eight categories to see if the indexing rate differs from subject to subject.

Results: The indexing rate in MEDLINE (86.6%) was slightly lower than in Embase (88.2%). Without the MEDLINE records in Embase, the indexing rate in Embase was 71.8%. The highest indexing rate was achieved by combining both databases (90.2%). The indexing rate was highest in the category "Physical health - treatment" (97.4%). The category "Welfare" had the lowest indexing rate (58.9%).

Conclusion: Our data reveals that 9.8% of the references are not indexed in either database. Furthermore, in 5% of the reviews, the indexing rate was 50% or lower.

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
Journal of the Medical Library Association
Journal of the Medical Library Association INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE-
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
10.00%
发文量
39
审稿时长
26 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of the Medical Library Association (JMLA) is an international, peer-reviewed journal published quarterly that aims to advance the practice and research knowledgebase of health sciences librarianship. The most current impact factor for the JMLA (from the 2007 edition of Journal Citation Reports) is 1.392.
期刊最新文献
A community engagement program to improve awareness for credible online health information. Consulting with an embedded librarian: student perceptions on the value of required research meetings. Designing a framework for curriculum building in systematic review competencies for librarians: a case report. History in context: teaching the history of dentistry with rare materials. MLA Research Training Institute (RTI) 2018 and 2019: participant research confidence and program effectiveness.
×
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