中国循证医学杂志
中國循證醫學雜誌
중국순증의학잡지
CHINESE JOURNAL OF EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE
2009年
7期
809-814
,共6页
Cochrane系统评价%新检索%检索策略
Cochrane繫統評價%新檢索%檢索策略
Cochrane계통평개%신검색%검색책략
Systematic review%New search%Search strategy
目的 对标有"New search"的Cochrane系统评价在检索方面的特点和检索策略进行统计分析,探讨这些特点和检索策略是否对更新系统评价有帮助.方法 在John Wiley＆Sons公司2009年第1期The CochraneLibrary的"Advanced Search"检索模块,选择"New search"选项进行检索,并将检索结果转入到ProCite参考文献管理软件,然后逐一浏览The Cochrane Library中每一检索结果的"What'S new"、"History"及"Appendix"部分,并将此部分内容加到Pro Cite参考文献管理软件的相关字段中以便统计分析.结果 共检出140条标注有"New search"图标的系统评价,其中新检索总频次274次,平均1.96次/篇;两年内至少进行一次新检索的有58篇(41.43%);有61篇(43.57%)附有检索策略,其中检索最多的数据库是MEDLINE,共56篇(91.80%),其次是EMBASE 47篇(77.05%)、CENTRAL 45篇(73.77%).在将检索策略作为附件的系统评价中,多数没有正确标注针对各个数据库最近一次检索时间和所检数据库的时间范围.结论 虽然有些Cochrane系统评价更新时存在更新不及时、检索策略标注相关信息不完善等问题,但部分内容对系统评价员更新检索仍有帮助.
目的 對標有"New search"的Cochrane繫統評價在檢索方麵的特點和檢索策略進行統計分析,探討這些特點和檢索策略是否對更新繫統評價有幫助.方法 在John Wiley＆Sons公司2009年第1期The CochraneLibrary的"Advanced Search"檢索模塊,選擇"New search"選項進行檢索,併將檢索結果轉入到ProCite參攷文獻管理軟件,然後逐一瀏覽The Cochrane Library中每一檢索結果的"What'S new"、"History"及"Appendix"部分,併將此部分內容加到Pro Cite參攷文獻管理軟件的相關字段中以便統計分析.結果 共檢齣140條標註有"New search"圖標的繫統評價,其中新檢索總頻次274次,平均1.96次/篇;兩年內至少進行一次新檢索的有58篇(41.43%);有61篇(43.57%)附有檢索策略,其中檢索最多的數據庫是MEDLINE,共56篇(91.80%),其次是EMBASE 47篇(77.05%)、CENTRAL 45篇(73.77%).在將檢索策略作為附件的繫統評價中,多數沒有正確標註針對各箇數據庫最近一次檢索時間和所檢數據庫的時間範圍.結論 雖然有些Cochrane繫統評價更新時存在更新不及時、檢索策略標註相關信息不完善等問題,但部分內容對繫統評價員更新檢索仍有幫助.
목적 대표유"New search"적Cochrane계통평개재검색방면적특점화검색책략진행통계분석,탐토저사특점화검색책략시부대경신계통평개유방조.방법 재John Wiley＆Sons공사2009년제1기The CochraneLibrary적"Advanced Search"검색모괴,선택"New search"선항진행검색,병장검색결과전입도ProCite삼고문헌관리연건,연후축일류람The Cochrane Library중매일검색결과적"What'S new"、"History"급"Appendix"부분,병장차부분내용가도Pro Cite삼고문헌관리연건적상관자단중이편통계분석.결과 공검출140조표주유"New search"도표적계통평개,기중신검색총빈차274차,평균1.96차/편;량년내지소진행일차신검색적유58편(41.43%);유61편(43.57%)부유검색책략,기중검색최다적수거고시MEDLINE,공56편(91.80%),기차시EMBASE 47편(77.05%)、CENTRAL 45편(73.77%).재장검색책략작위부건적계통평개중,다수몰유정학표주침대각개수거고최근일차검색시간화소검수거고적시간범위.결론 수연유사Cochrane계통평개경신시존재경신불급시、검색책략표주상관신식불완선등문제,단부분내용대계통평개원경신검색잉유방조.
Objective To search through the Cochrane database of systematic reviews using the flag new search option to find out whether this strategy helps update revivews. Methods We chose the New search option in the advanced search in The Cochrane Library on Wiley Inter Science (Issue 1, 2009), and input all hit citations to the ProCite software. We then looked through the "What's new','History', as well as "Appendices" on hit reviews in the Cochrane library one by one, and then added these related contents to the field of the Pro Cite in order to analyze the results. Results A total of 140 systematic reviews had the flag new search. Among them, the total new search frequency were 274, meaning frequency was 1.96/1; updated within two years were 58 (41.43); there were 61 reviews with "Appendices" (43.57%). The status of the chosen database among the 61 reviews with "Appendices" was as follows: most were from MEDLINE (56 reviews, 91.80%), next EMBASE (47 reviews, 77.05 %), and finally CENTRAL (45 reviews, 73.7%). Among the reviews with "Appendices', most of them were not correctly labeled. Conclusion Although some Cochrane systematic reviews are updated in a timely fashion, there is some incomplete information, although it may be still helpful for researchers to look for new studies.
