Centre for Paediatric Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University College London-Institute of Child Health, 30 Guilford Street, London, WC1N 1EH, United Kingdom.
J Med Libr Assoc. 2010 Apr;98(2):140-6. doi: 10.3163/1536-5050.98.2.006.
Although an important part of the evidence base in health, systematic reviews are not always easy to find. Difficulties are compounded when interventions under review are "social and environmental" (that is, targeting wider determinants of health). The authors explored searches from a descriptive map containing thirty-two systematic reviews evaluating the effectiveness of social and environmental interventions for childhood obesity.
Which sources give the highest yield of relevant reviews per 100 records? What is the value of searching databases that index literature beyond the "health" arena when looking for data on the effectiveness of social and environmental interventions?
The authors analyzed search results from nineteen databases and calculated the precision and the relative and unique contribution of each source.
Searches of specialist systematic review databases-Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), Database of Promoting Health Effectiveness Reviews (DoPHER), and Health Technology Assessment (HTA)-had the highest precision, although MEDLINE, CINAHL, and PsycINFO located many additional reviews. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews should be searched for health-related reviews. Searches of education, transportation, social policy, and social sciences databases did not identify additional reviews. Searching websites and bibliographies was important.
Searches for review-level evidence could profitably start with the specialist review databases. Searches of the major health-related databases are essential, but database searching beyond them may not identify much additional evidence. Internet and hand-search remain important sources of reviews not found elsewhere. Comparison of the results with previous research suggests that appropriate sources for locating primary and secondary evidence may be different.
尽管系统评价是健康证据基础的重要组成部分，但并不总是容易找到。当所审查的干预措施是“社会和环境”（即针对更广泛的健康决定因素）时，困难会更加复杂。作者探讨了从一个包含 32 项评估社会和环境干预对儿童肥胖有效性的系统评价的描述性地图中进行的搜索。
哪些来源每 100 条记录提供的相关综述最多？当寻找有关社会和环境干预措施有效性的数据时，搜索索引超出“健康”领域的文献的数据库有何价值？
作者分析了来自 19 个数据库的搜索结果，并计算了每个来源的精度以及相对和独特的贡献。
尽管 MEDLINE、CINAHL 和 PsycINFO 找到了许多其他的综述，但专门的系统评价数据库（效果评价摘要数据库（DARE）、促进健康效果评价数据库（DoPHER）和卫生技术评估（HTA））的搜索具有最高的精度。 Cochrane 系统评价数据库应搜索与健康相关的综述。搜索教育、交通、社会政策和社会科学数据库并未发现其他综述。搜索网站和参考文献非常重要。
搜索综述级别的证据可以从专门的综述数据库开始。搜索主要的健康相关数据库是必不可少的，但对这些数据库之外的数据库进行搜索可能不会发现更多的证据。互联网和手工搜索仍然是未在其他地方找到的综述的重要来源。与以前的研究结果进行比较表明，查找初级和二级证据的适当来源可能不同。
