对PubMed免费全文对临床问题文献检索的限制进行的探索性分析。
An exploratory analysis of PubMed's free full-text limit on citation retrieval for clinical questions.
作者信息
Krieger Mary M, Richter Randy R, Austin Tricia M
机构信息
Information Services, Medical Center Library, Saint Louis University, 1402 South Grand Boulevard, St. Louis, MO 63104, USA.
出版信息
J Med Libr Assoc. 2008 Oct;96(4):351-5. doi: 10.3163/1536-5050.96.4.010.
OBJECTIVE
The research sought to determine (1) how use of the PubMed free full-text (FFT) limit affects citation retrieval and (2) how use of the FFT limit impacts the types of articles and levels of evidence retrieved.
METHODS
Four clinical questions based on a research agenda for physical therapy were searched in PubMed both with and without the use of the FFT limit. Retrieved citations were examined for relevancy to each question. Abstracts of relevant citations were reviewed to determine the types of articles and levels of evidence. Descriptive analysis was used to compare the total number of citations, number of relevant citations, types of articles, and levels of evidence both with and without the use of the FFT limit.
RESULTS
Across all 4 questions, the FFT limit reduced the number of citations to 11.1% of the total number of citations retrieved without the FFT limit. Additionally, high-quality evidence such as systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials were missed when the FFT limit was used.
CONCLUSIONS
Health sciences librarians play a key role in educating users about the potential impact the FFT limit has on the number of citations, types of articles, and levels of evidence retrieved.
目的
本研究旨在确定：（1）使用PubMed免费全文（FFT）限制如何影响文献检索；（2）使用FFT限制如何影响检索到的文章类型和证据水平。
方法
根据物理治疗研究议程提出的四个临床问题，在PubMed中分别使用和不使用FFT限制进行检索。检查检索到的文献与每个问题的相关性。对相关文献的摘要进行审查，以确定文章类型和证据水平。采用描述性分析比较使用和不使用FFT限制时的文献总数、相关文献数量、文章类型和证据水平。
结果
在所有4个问题中，FFT限制将文献数量减少至不使用FFT限制时检索到的文献总数的11.1%。此外，使用FFT限制时会遗漏高质量证据，如系统评价和随机对照试验。
结论
健康科学图书馆员在教育用户了解FFT限制对检索到的文献数量、文章类型和证据水平的潜在影响方面发挥着关键作用。
Zotero 插件