Suppr超能文献

社会干预对健康影响的系统评价:1. 寻找证据:你应该深入到什么程度?

Systematic reviews of health effects of social interventions: 1. Finding the evidence: how far should you go?

作者信息

Ogilvie David, Hamilton Val, Egan Matt, Petticrew Mark

机构信息

MRC Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, University of Glasgow, 4 Lilybank Gardens, Glasgow G12 8RZ, UK.

出版信息

J Epidemiol Community Health. 2005 Sep;59(9):804-8. doi: 10.1136/jech.2005.034181.

Abstract

STUDY OBJECTIVE

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.

DESIGN

Retrospective analysis of the sources of studies for one systematic review.

SETTING

Case study of a systematic review of the effectiveness of interventions in promoting a population shift from using cars towards walking and cycling.

MAIN RESULTS

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.

CONCLUSIONS

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.

摘要

研究目的

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。

设计

对一项系统评价的研究来源进行回顾性分析。

背景

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。

主要结果

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。

结论

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。

相似文献

9
Errors in search strategies were identified by type and frequency.检索策略中的错误按照类型和频率进行识别。
J Clin Epidemiol. 2006 Oct;59(10):1057-63. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.01.007. Epub 2006 Jun 23.
10
No consensus exists on search reporting methods for systematic reviews.对于系统评价的检索报告方法,目前尚无共识。
J Clin Epidemiol. 2008 Aug;61(8):748-54. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.10.009. Epub 2008 Feb 14.

引用本文的文献

6
Optimal literature search for systematic reviews in surgery.外科系统评价的最佳文献检索
Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2018 Feb;403(1):119-129. doi: 10.1007/s00423-017-1646-x. Epub 2017 Dec 5.

本文引用的文献

5
Enhancing the evidence base for health impact assessment.加强健康影响评估的证据基础。
J Epidemiol Community Health. 2004 Jul;58(7):546-51. doi: 10.1136/jech.2003.012401.
9
New roads and human health: a systematic review.新道路与人类健康:一项系统综述
Am J Public Health. 2003 Sep;93(9):1463-71. doi: 10.2105/ajph.93.9.1463.
10
Evidence, hierarchies, and typologies: horses for courses.证据、层次体系与类型学:各有所用。
J Epidemiol Community Health. 2003 Jul;57(7):527-9. doi: 10.1136/jech.57.7.527.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验