Ogilvie David, Hamilton Val, Egan Matt, Petticrew Mark
MRC Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, University of Glasgow, 4 Lilybank Gardens, Glasgow G12 8RZ, UK.
J Epidemiol Community Health. 2005 Sep;59(9):804-8. doi: 10.1136/jech.2005.034181.
There is little guidance on how to identify useful evidence about the health effects of social interventions. The aim of this study was to assess the value of different ways of finding this type of information.
Retrospective analysis of the sources of studies for one systematic review.
Case study of a systematic review of the effectiveness of interventions in promoting a population shift from using cars towards walking and cycling.
Only four of the 69 relevant studies were found in a "first-line" health database such as Medline. About half of all relevant studies were found through the specialist Transport database. Nine relevant studies were found through purposive internet searches and seven relevant studies were found by chance. The unique contribution of experts was not to identify additional studies, but to provide more information about those already found in the literature.
Most of the evidence needed for this review was not found in studies indexed in familiar literature databases. Applying a sensitive search strategy across multiple databases and interfaces is very labour intensive. Retrospective analysis suggests that a more efficient method might have been to search a few key resources, then to ask authors and experts directly for the most robust reports of studies identified. However, internet publications and serendipitous discoveries did make a significant contribution to the total set of relevant evidence. Undertaking a comprehensive search may provide unique evidence and insights that would not be obtained using a more focused search.
关于如何识别社会干预对健康影响的有用证据，几乎没有相关指导。本研究旨在评估查找此类信息的不同方法的价值。
对一项系统评价的研究来源进行回顾性分析。
一项关于促进人群从使用汽车转向步行和骑自行车的干预措施有效性的系统评价的案例研究。
在诸如Medline等“一线”健康数据库中，69项相关研究中仅发现4项。所有相关研究中约一半是通过专业交通数据库找到的。通过有目的的互联网搜索找到9项相关研究，偶然发现7项相关研究。专家的独特贡献不是识别更多研究，而是提供更多关于文献中已发现研究的信息。
本综述所需的大部分证据并非在常见文献数据库索引的研究中找到。在多个数据库和界面应用敏感的搜索策略非常耗费人力。回顾性分析表明，一种更有效的方法可能是搜索一些关键资源，然后直接向作者和专家索要已识别研究中最可靠的报告。然而，互联网出版物和偶然发现确实对相关证据的总体集做出了重大贡献。进行全面搜索可能会提供使用更有针对性的搜索无法获得的独特证据和见解。
