Suppr超能文献

在识别使用特定测量工具的研究方面,引文检索比关键词检索更敏感。

Citation searches are more sensitive than keyword searches to identify studies using specific measurement instruments.

作者信息

Linder Suzanne K, Kamath Geetanjali R, Pratt Gregory F, Saraykar Smita S, Volk Robert J

机构信息

Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, Sealy Center on Aging, The University of Texas Medical Branch, 301 University Blvd, Galveston, TX 77555-0177, USA.

Department of Health Services Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1400 Pressler St, Houston, TX 77030, USA.

出版信息

J Clin Epidemiol. 2015 Apr;68(4):412-7. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.10.008. Epub 2014 Dec 29.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effectiveness of two search methods in identifying studies that used the Control Preferences Scale (CPS), a health care decision-making instrument commonly used in clinical settings.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We searched the literature using two methods: (1) keyword searching using variations of "Control Preferences Scale" and (2) cited reference searching using two seminal CPS publications. We searched three bibliographic databases [PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science (WOS)] and one full-text database (Google Scholar). We report precision and sensitivity as measures of effectiveness.

RESULTS

Keyword searches in bibliographic databases yielded high average precision (90%) but low average sensitivity (16%). PubMed was the most precise, followed closely by Scopus and WOS. The Google Scholar keyword search had low precision (54%) but provided the highest sensitivity (70%). Cited reference searches in all databases yielded moderate sensitivity (45-54%), but precision ranged from 35% to 75% with Scopus being the most precise.

CONCLUSION

Cited reference searches were more sensitive than keyword searches, making it a more comprehensive strategy to identify all studies that use a particular instrument. Keyword searches provide a quick way of finding some but not all relevant articles. Goals, time, and resources should dictate the combination of which methods and databases are used.

摘要

目的

比较两种检索方法在识别使用控制偏好量表(CPS)的研究中的有效性,CPS是临床环境中常用的医疗保健决策工具。

研究设计与设置

我们使用两种方法检索文献:(1)使用“控制偏好量表”变体进行关键词检索,(2)使用两篇CPS重要出版物进行参考文献检索。我们检索了三个书目数据库[PubMed、Scopus和科学网(WOS)]和一个全文数据库(谷歌学术)。我们报告了作为有效性指标的精确率和敏感度。

结果

书目数据库中的关键词检索平均精确率较高(90%),但平均敏感度较低(16%)。PubMed最精确,其次是Scopus和WOS。谷歌学术关键词检索精确率较低(54%),但敏感度最高(70%)。所有数据库中的参考文献检索敏感度适中(45 - 54%),但精确率在35%至75%之间,Scopus最精确。

结论

参考文献检索比关键词检索更敏感,使其成为识别所有使用特定工具的研究的更全面策略。关键词检索提供了一种快速找到部分而非全部相关文章的方法。目标、时间和资源应决定使用哪些方法和数据库的组合。

相似文献

1
Citation searches are more sensitive than keyword searches to identify studies using specific measurement instruments.
J Clin Epidemiol. 2015 Apr;68(4):412-7. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.10.008. Epub 2014 Dec 29.
3
Gaps in affiliation indexing in Scopus and PubMed.
J Med Libr Assoc. 2016 Apr;104(2):138-42. doi: 10.3163/1536-5050.104.2.008.
4
Information sources for obesity prevention policy research: a review of systematic reviews.
Syst Rev. 2017 Aug 8;6(1):156. doi: 10.1186/s13643-017-0543-2.
5
Retrieving clinical evidence: a comparison of PubMed and Google Scholar for quick clinical searches.
J Med Internet Res. 2013 Aug 15;15(8):e164. doi: 10.2196/jmir.2624.
6
Supplementary strategies identified additional eligible studies in qualitative systematic reviews.
J Clin Epidemiol. 2023 Jul;159:85-91. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2023.04.017. Epub 2023 May 17.
7
Citation searching: a systematic review case study of multiple risk behaviour interventions.
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014 Jun 3;14:73. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-14-73.
8
Specialist Bibliographic Databases.
J Korean Med Sci. 2016 May;31(5):660-73. doi: 10.3346/jkms.2016.31.5.660. Epub 2016 Feb 23.
9
Google Scholar versus PubMed in locating primary literature to answer drug-related questions.
Ann Pharmacother. 2009 Mar;43(3):478-84. doi: 10.1345/aph.1L223. Epub 2009 Mar 3.

引用本文的文献

3
Trends in academic research on thirdhand smoke using bibliometric analysis.
Tob Induc Dis. 2025 Apr 3;23. doi: 10.18332/tid/201402. eCollection 2025.
4
Nerve identification during open inguinal hernia repair: a systematic review and meta-analyses.
Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2023 Oct 24;408(1):417. doi: 10.1007/s00423-023-03154-2.
5
External Load Monitoring in Female Basketball: A Systematic Review.
J Hum Kinet. 2023 Jul 15;87:173-198. doi: 10.5114/jhk/166881. eCollection 2023 Jul.
10
Search methods for prognostic factor systematic reviews: a methodologic investigation.
J Med Libr Assoc. 2021 Jan 1;109(1):23-32. doi: 10.5195/jmla.2021.939.

本文引用的文献

1
Citation searching: a systematic review case study of multiple risk behaviour interventions.
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014 Jun 3;14:73. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-14-73.
2
A population search filter for hard-to-reach populations increased search efficiency for a systematic review.
J Clin Epidemiol. 2014 May;67(5):554-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.12.006.
3
Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 Jan 28(1):CD001431. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001431.pub4.
7
Google Scholar is not enough to be used alone for systematic reviews.
Online J Public Health Inform. 2013 Jul 1;5(2):214. doi: 10.5210/ojphi.v5i2.4623. Print 2013.
8
Is the coverage of Google Scholar enough to be used alone for systematic reviews.
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2013 Jan 9;13:7. doi: 10.1186/1472-6947-13-7.
10
Search filters can find some but not all knowledge translation articles in MEDLINE: an analytic survey.
J Clin Epidemiol. 2012 Jun;65(6):651-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.10.014. Epub 2012 Mar 16.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验