Alton Viveka, Eckerlund Ingemar, Norlund Anders
Swedish Council on Technology Assessment in Health Care, Stockholm, Sweden.
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2006 Fall;22(4):512-7. doi: 10.1017/S0266462306051452.
The aim of this study was to demonstrate the best way of identifying all relevant published health economic evaluation studies, which have increased in number rapidly in the past few decades. Nevertheless, health technology assessment projects are often faced with a scarcity of relevant studies.
Six bibliographic databases were searched using various individually adapted strategies. The particular example involves the cost-effectiveness of diagnosing gastroesophageal reflux disease. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were formulated.
After irrelevant studies and duplicates had been excluded, sixty-eight abstracts were reviewed. We chose forty-one of them as relevant for full-text review, which identified fourteen papers as having met the inclusion criteria. Most of the relevant studies were identified by searching the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED) and PubMed databases.
A search in NHS EED, by means of the Cochrane Library or the Center for Reviews and Dissimination, along with a supplementary search in PubMed, is generally an appropriate, cost-effective strategy. However, because "cost-effectiveness" is not consistently indexed with Medical Subject Heading terms in PubMed, all economic search terms need to be used to fully identify the relevant references.
本研究旨在展示识别所有相关已发表卫生经济评估研究的最佳方法，在过去几十年中，此类研究数量迅速增加。然而，卫生技术评估项目常常面临相关研究匮乏的问题。
使用各种单独调整的策略检索了六个书目数据库。具体例子涉及胃食管反流病诊断的成本效益。制定了纳入和排除标准。
在排除无关研究和重复研究后，对68篇摘要进行了审查。我们选择其中41篇进行全文审查，确定有14篇论文符合纳入标准。大多数相关研究是通过检索国家卫生服务经济评估数据库（NHS EED）和PubMed数据库识别出来的。
通过Cochrane图书馆或综述与传播中心在NHS EED中进行检索，以及在PubMed中进行补充检索，通常是一种合适的、具有成本效益的策略。然而，由于“成本效益”在PubMed中未始终与医学主题词索引，需要使用所有经济检索词来全面识别相关参考文献。
