在多个数据库中检索系统评价：附加值还是收益递减？
Searching multiple databases for systematic reviews: added value or diminishing returns?
作者信息
Stevinson C, Lawlor D A
机构信息
Department of Exercise and Health Sciences, Centre for Sport, Exercise and Health, University of Bristol, Tyndall Avenue, Bristol BS8 1TP, UK.
出版信息
Complement Ther Med. 2004 Dec;12(4):228-32. doi: 10.1016/j.ctim.2004.09.003.
OBJECTIVE
To explore whether searching specialised bibliographic databases identified additional relevant papers to those located by a Medline search for a systematic review of exercise therapy.
METHOD
Searches were performed in Medline, two further generalised medical databases (Embase, Cochrane Library) and four specialised databases (CancerLit, Cinahl, PsychInfo, SportDiscus) to identify controlled trials of exercise interventions for cancer patients.
RESULTS
A total of 749 different publications were located through the search, of which 18 met inclusion criteria. Fifteen (83%) of these were identified through Medline and three (17%) from three individual specialised databases. A further seven studies meeting inclusion criteria were located through reference lists and contact with experts.
CONCLUSION
In this example, searching Medline and additional specialised databases along with checking reference lists and contacting experts was the most effective means of ensuring that all relevant papers were included in the review. Searching Medline alone for systematic reviews of exercise or other unconventional therapies is likely to be inadequate.
目的
探讨在系统评价运动疗法时，检索专业文献数据库是否能找出比通过Medline检索所找到的更多相关论文。
方法
在Medline、另外两个综合医学数据库（Embase、Cochrane图书馆）以及四个专业数据库（CancerLit、Cinahl、PsychInfo、SportDiscus）中进行检索，以识别针对癌症患者的运动干预对照试验。
结果
通过检索共找到749种不同的出版物，其中18种符合纳入标准。其中15种（83%）是通过Medline找到的，3种（17%）来自三个独立的专业数据库。通过参考文献列表和与专家联系又找到了另外7项符合纳入标准的研究。
结论
在这个例子中，检索Medline和其他专业数据库，同时检查参考文献列表并与专家联系，是确保所有相关论文都纳入综述的最有效方法。仅检索Medline进行运动或其他非常规疗法的系统评价可能是不够的。
Zotero 插件