CAJ | 학술논문

目的：调查Meta-analysis的作者们报道检索策略效果证据的范畴。材料：时近10年EBSCO数据库MEDLINE全文子集标引“Meta-analysis”为出版物类型的论文。进行随机抽样调查（n=100）。方法：将这些论文分为三类。结论：最后分析的93篇论文样本中，A类占8．6％（8篇），B类占61．3％（57篇），C类占30．1％（28篇）。讨论：A类论文报道了先前有效的、公开发表了的或者基于专家意见的检索策略。专家评审标准一定要力争得到进一步发展。那就要求Meta-analysis的作者，对他们检索策略的效果证据要加以报道。
목적：조사Meta-analysis적작자문보도검색책략효과증거적범주。재료：시근10년EBSCO수거고MEDLINE전문자집표인“Meta-analysis”위출판물류형적논문。진행수궤추양조사（n=100）。방법：장저사논문분위삼류。결론：최후분석적93편논문양본중，A류점8．6％（8편），B류점61．3％（57편），C류점30．1％（28편）。토론：A류논문보도료선전유효적、공개발표료적혹자기우전가의견적검색책략。전가평심표준일정요력쟁득도진일보발전。나취요구Meta-analysis적작자，대타문검색책략적효과증거요가이보도。
Objective： The objective of study is to investigate the extent to which the authors of the Meta-analysiss report proof of their retrieval strategies＇ effectiveness. Material： The authors of this article examined a random sample （n = 100） of articles from 1995 to 2004 full-text subset of MEDLINE indexed as ＂meta-analysis in pt.＂ Method： We classified these articles in three ways. Conclusion： The ninety-three articles in our final sample, eight （8.6%） were classified as category （A）, fifty-seven （61.3%） as （S）, and twenty-eight （30.1%） as （C）. Discussion： The articles in category A reported a previously validated search, a published strategy, or strategy based on expert opinion. The standards of Peer-review must be developed that require authors of Meta-analysiss to report evidence for the effectiveness about their retrieval strategies.