在系统评价中，从 PubMed、EMBASE 和 Cochrane Library 数据库中查找重复文献。
Find duplicates among the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library Databases in systematic review.
机构信息
Xijing Hospital of Digestive Diseases, Fourth Military Medical University, Xi'an, China ; Department of Gastroenterology, No. 463 Hospital of Chinese PLA, Shenyang, China.
出版信息
PLoS One. 2013 Aug 20;8(8):e71838. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0071838. eCollection 2013.
BACKGROUND
Finding duplicates is an important phase of systematic review. However, no consensus regarding the methods to find duplicates has been provided. This study aims to describe a pragmatic strategy of combining auto- and hand-searching duplicates in systematic review and to evaluate the prevalence and characteristics of duplicates.
METHODS AND FINDINGS
Literatures regarding portal vein thrombosis (PVT) and Budd-Chiari syndrome (BCS) were searched by the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane library databases. Duplicates included one index paper and one or more redundant papers. They were divided into type-I (duplicates among different databases) and type-II (duplicate publications in different journals/issues) duplicates. For type-I duplicates, reference items were further compared between index and redundant papers. Of 10936 papers regarding PVT, 2399 and 1307 were identified as auto- and hand-searched duplicates, respectively. The prevalence of auto- and hand-searched redundant papers was 11.0% (1201/10936) and 6.1% (665/10936), respectively. They included 3431 type-I and 275 type-II duplicates. Of 11403 papers regarding BCS, 3275 and 2064 were identified as auto- and hand-searched duplicates, respectively. The prevalence of auto- and hand-searched redundant papers was 14.4% (1640/11403) and 9.1% (1039/11403), respectively. They included 5053 type-I and 286 type-II duplicates. Most of type-I duplicates were identified by auto-searching method (69.5%, 2385/3431 in PVT literatures; 64.6%, 3263/5053 in BCS literatures). Nearly all type-II duplicates were identified by hand-searching method (94.9%, 261/275 in PVT literatures; 95.8%, 274/286 in BCS literatures). Compared with those identified by auto-searching method, type-I duplicates identified by hand-searching method had a significantly higher prevalence of wrong items (47/2385 versus 498/1046, p<0.0001 in PVT literatures; 30/3263 versus 778/1790, p<0.0001 in BCS literatures). Most of wrong items originated from EMBASE database.
CONCLUSION
Given the inadequacy of a single strategy of auto-searching method, a combined strategy of auto- and hand-searching methods should be employed to find duplicates in systematic review.
背景
发现重复文献是系统评价的一个重要环节。然而，目前还没有针对重复文献检索方法的共识。本研究旨在描述一种实用的策略，即在系统评价中结合自动检索和手动检索来查找重复文献，并评估重复文献的发生率和特征。
方法和发现
通过 PubMed、EMBASE 和 Cochrane 图书馆数据库检索门静脉血栓形成（PVT）和布加综合征（BCS）相关文献。重复文献包括一篇索引文献和一篇或多篇冗余文献。它们被分为 I 型（不同数据库之间的重复）和 II 型（不同期刊/期号中的重复出版物）重复。对于 I 型重复，索引文献和冗余文献之间的参考文献进一步进行比较。在 10936 篇关于 PVT 的文献中，自动检索和手动检索分别发现 2399 篇和 1307 篇重复文献。自动检索和手动检索重复文献的发生率分别为 11.0%（1201/10936）和 6.1%（665/10936）。它们包括 3431 篇 I 型和 275 篇 II 型重复文献。在 11403 篇关于 BCS 的文献中，自动检索和手动检索分别发现 3275 篇和 2064 篇重复文献。自动检索和手动检索重复文献的发生率分别为 14.4%（1640/11403）和 9.1%（1039/11403）。它们包括 5053 篇 I 型和 286 篇 II 型重复文献。大多数 I 型重复是通过自动检索方法发现的（PVT 文献中为 69.5%，即 2385/3431；BCS 文献中为 64.6%，即 3263/5053）。几乎所有的 II 型重复都是通过手动检索方法发现的（PVT 文献中为 94.9%，即 261/275；BCS 文献中为 95.8%，即 274/286）。与通过自动检索方法发现的重复相比，通过手动检索方法发现的 I 型重复具有更高的错误项目发生率（PVT 文献中分别为 47/2385 与 498/1046，p<0.0001；BCS 文献中分别为 30/3263 与 778/1790，p<0.0001）。大多数错误项目来源于 EMBASE 数据库。
结论
鉴于单一自动检索方法的不足，系统评价中应采用自动检索和手动检索相结合的策略来查找重复文献。
Zotero 插件