Suppr超能文献

[在德国医学期刊中手工检索随机对照临床试验]

[Handsearching for randomized controlled clinical trials in German medical journals].

作者信息

Blümle A, Antes G

机构信息

Deutsches Cochrane Zentrum, Institut für Medizinische Biometrie und Medizinische Informatik, Universitätsklinikum Freiburg, Stefan-Meier-Strasse 26,79104 Freiburg.

出版信息

Dtsch Med Wochenschr. 2008 Feb;133(6):230-4. doi: 10.1055/s-2008-1017501.

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The identification of all available and relevant study reports is mandatory for a comprehensive inclusion of all eligible randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) in systematic reviews. Incorrect indexing and incomplete compilation of health care journals in electronic databases impair the result of a systematic literature search. An additional search in medical journals which are not listed in electronic databases is necessary to obtain greater search completeness.

METHODS

Within the scope of the Handsearching project of the Cochrane Collaboration, 85 health care journals were searched for RCTs and CCTs. The identified trial reports were compared with all relevant trials included in Medline. The identified study reports had been published in the Cochrane Library and were thus available worldwide for inclusion in systematic reviews.

RESULTS

2614 volumes of 85 journals (3789 journal volumes) were searched for RCTs and CCTs. 18 491 controlled trials (10 218 RCTs und 8 273 CCTs) were identified, 10 165 (55 %) of which were not included in Medline. None of the identified trials published in 27 (32%) journals had been included in Medline.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a gap between the number of handsearch results and the number of Medline-indexed RCTs and CCTs for almost every searched health care journal. Although many journals have already been searched and many clinical trials could be identified, the hand-searching project will be continued prospectively and retrospectively to ensure the completeness of the literature compilation. Journals and volumes that are not indexed in Medline should always be searched for and the identified reports should be published in the Cochrane Library.

摘要

背景与目的

为了在系统评价中全面纳入所有符合条件的随机对照试验(RCT)和对照临床试验(CCT),识别所有可用且相关的研究报告是必不可少的。电子数据库中医疗保健期刊的索引错误和汇编不完整会影响系统文献检索的结果。有必要在未列入电子数据库的医学期刊中进行额外检索,以提高检索的完整性。

方法

在Cochrane协作网手工检索项目范围内,对85种医疗保健期刊进行了RCT和CCT检索。将识别出的试验报告与Medline中纳入的所有相关试验进行比较。识别出的研究报告已发表在Cochrane图书馆,因此可供全球范围内纳入系统评价。

结果

对85种期刊的2614卷(共3789期刊卷)进行了RCT和CCT检索。识别出18491项对照试验(10218项RCT和8273项CCT),其中10165项(55%)未被Medline收录。在27种(32%)期刊上发表的已识别试验中,没有一项被Medline收录。

结论

几乎每种检索的医疗保健期刊的手工检索结果数量与Medline索引的RCT和CCT数量之间都存在差距。尽管已经检索了许多期刊,并且识别出了许多临床试验,但手工检索项目将继续进行前瞻性和回顾性检索,以确保文献汇编的完整性。对于未在Medline中索引的期刊和卷册,应始终进行检索,并将识别出的报告发表在Cochrane图书馆。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验