寻找纳入系统评价的定性研究:一项结构化方法学综述。

Searching for qualitative research for inclusion in systematic reviews: a structured methodological review.

作者信息

Booth Andrew

机构信息

Reader in Evidence Based Information Practice, School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, Regent Court, 30 Regent Street, Sheffield, S1 4DA, UK.

出版信息

Syst Rev. 2016 May 4;5:74. doi: 10.1186/s13643-016-0249-x.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Qualitative systematic reviews or qualitative evidence syntheses (QES) are increasingly recognised as a way to enhance the value of systematic reviews (SRs) of clinical trials. They can explain the mechanisms by which interventions, evaluated within trials, might achieve their effect. They can investigate differences in effects between different population groups. They can identify which outcomes are most important to patients, carers, health professionals and other stakeholders. QES can explore the impact of acceptance, feasibility, meaningfulness and implementation-related factors within a real world setting and thus contribute to the design and further refinement of future interventions. To produce valid, reliable and meaningful QES requires systematic identification of relevant qualitative evidence. Although the methodologies of QES, including methods for information retrieval, are well-documented, little empirical evidence exists to inform their conduct and reporting.

METHODS

This structured methodological overview examines papers on searching for qualitative research identified from the Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group Methodology Register and from citation searches of 15 key papers.

RESULTS

A single reviewer reviewed 1299 references. Papers reporting methodological guidance, use of innovative methodologies or empirical studies of retrieval methods were categorised under eight topical headings: overviews and methodological guidance, sampling, sources, structured questions, search procedures, search strategies and filters, supplementary strategies and standards.

CONCLUSIONS

This structured overview presents a contemporaneous view of information retrieval for qualitative research and identifies a future research agenda. This review concludes that poor empirical evidence underpins current information practice in information retrieval of qualitative research. A trend towards improved transparency of search methods and further evaluation of key search procedures offers the prospect of rapid development of search methods.

摘要

背景

定性系统评价或定性证据综合(QES)越来越被视为一种提升临床试验系统评价(SR)价值的方法。它们可以解释在试验中评估的干预措施可能产生效果的机制。它们可以调查不同人群组之间效果的差异。它们可以确定哪些结果对患者、护理人员、卫生专业人员和其他利益相关者最为重要。QES可以在现实环境中探索接受度、可行性、意义和与实施相关的因素的影响,从而有助于未来干预措施的设计和进一步完善。要产生有效、可靠且有意义的QES,需要系统地识别相关的定性证据。尽管QES的方法,包括信息检索方法,都有详细记录,但几乎没有实证证据为其实施和报告提供参考。

方法

本结构化方法概述审查了从Cochrane定性与实施方法组方法学注册库以及对15篇关键论文的引文检索中识别出的关于定性研究检索的论文。

结果

一名评审员审查了1299篇参考文献。报告方法学指导、创新方法的使用或检索方法实证研究的论文被归类在八个主题标题下:概述和方法学指导、抽样、来源、结构化问题、检索程序、检索策略和筛选器、补充策略和标准。

结论

本结构化概述呈现了定性研究信息检索的当代观点,并确定了未来的研究议程。本综述得出结论,目前定性研究信息检索中的信息实践缺乏有力的实证证据支持。搜索方法透明度提高以及对关键检索程序进行进一步评估的趋势为搜索方法的快速发展提供了前景。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/f1f9/4855695/35f44a7bfd25/13643_2016_249_Fig1_HTML.jpg

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