物理治疗干预随机对照试验的索引：AMED、CENTRAL、CINAHL、EMBASE、“证据成瘾”、PEDro、PsycINFO和PubMed的比较

Indexing of randomised controlled trials of physiotherapy interventions: a comparison of AMED, CENTRAL, CINAHL, EMBASE, hooked on evidence, PEDro, PsycINFO and PubMed.

作者信息

Moseley Anne M, Sherrington Catherine, Elkins Mark R, Herbert Robert D, Maher Christopher G

机构信息

The George Institute for International Health, The University of Sydney, PO Box M201, Missenden Road, Sydney, NSW 2050, Australia.

出版信息

Physiotherapy. 2009 Sep;95(3):151-6. doi: 10.1016/j.physio.2009.01.006. Epub 2009 Apr 23.

DOI:10.1016/j.physio.2009.01.006

PMID:19635333

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To compare the comprehensiveness of indexing the reports of randomised controlled trials of physiotherapy interventions by eight bibliographic databases (AMED, CENTRAL, CINAHL, EMBASE, Hooked on Evidence, PEDro, PsycINFO and PubMed).

DESIGN

Audit of bibliographic databases.

METHODS

Two hundred and eighty-one reports of randomised controlled trials of physiotherapy interventions were identified by screening the reference lists of 30 relevant systematic reviews published in four consecutive issues of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (Issue 3, 2007 to Issue 2, 2008). AMED, CENTRAL, CINAHL, EMBASE, Hooked on Evidence, PEDro, PsycINFO and PubMed were used to search for the trial reports. The number of trial reports indexed in each database was calculated.

RESULTS

PEDro indexed 99% of the trial reports, CENTRAL indexed 98%, PubMed indexed 91%, EMBASE indexed 82%, CINAHL indexed 61%, Hooked on Evidence indexed 40%, AMED indexed 36% and PsycINFO indexed 17%. Most trial reports (92%) were indexed on four or more of the databases. One trial report was indexed on a single database (PEDro).

CONCLUSIONS

Of the eight bibliographic databases examined, PEDro and CENTRAL provide the most comprehensive indexing of reports of randomised trials of physiotherapy interventions.

摘要

目的

比较八个书目数据库（AMED、CENTRAL、CINAHL、EMBASE、Hooked on Evidence、PEDro、PsycINFO和PubMed）对物理治疗干预随机对照试验报告进行索引的全面性。

设计

对书目数据库的审核。

方法

通过筛选连续四期《Cochrane系统评价数据库》（2007年第3期至2008年第2期）发表的30篇相关系统评价的参考文献列表，确定了281篇物理治疗干预随机对照试验的报告。使用AMED、CENTRAL、CINAHL、EMBASE、Hooked on Evidence、PEDro、PsycINFO和PubMed搜索试验报告。计算每个数据库中索引的试验报告数量。

结果

PEDro索引了99%的试验报告，CENTRAL索引了98%，PubMed索引了91%，EMBASE索引了82%，CINAHL索引了61%，Hooked on Evidence索引了40%，AMED索引了36%，PsycINFO索引了17%。大多数试验报告（92%）在四个或更多数据库中被索引。一篇试验报告仅在一个数据库（PEDro）中被索引。