Medical Library-Erasmus MC, Erasmus University Medical Centre Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Spencer S Eccles Health Sciences Library, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
Res Synth Methods. 2018 Dec;9(4):510-520. doi: 10.1002/jrsm.1279. Epub 2017 Nov 28.
To evaluate and validate the time of completion and results of a new method of searching for systematic reviews, the exhaustive search method (ESM), using a pragmatic comparison.
Single-line search strategies were prepared in a text document. Term completeness was ensured with a novel optimization technique. Macros in MS Word converted the syntaxes between databases and interfaces almost automatically. We compared search characteristics, such as number of search terms and databases, and outcomes, such as number of included and retrieved references and precision, from ESM searches and other Dutch academic hospitals identified by searching PubMed for systematic reviews published between 2014 and 2016. We compared time to perform the ESM with a secondary comparator of recorded search times from published literature and contact with authors to acquire unpublished data.
We identified 73 published Erasmus MC systematic reviews and 258 published by other Dutch academic hospitals meeting our criteria. We pooled search time data from 204 other systematic reviews. The ESM searches differed by using 2 times more databases, retrieving 44% more references, including 20% more studies in the final systematic review, but the time needed for the search was 8% of that of the control group. Similarities between methods include precision and the number of search terms.
The evaluated similarities and differences suggest that the ESM is a highly efficient way to locate more references meeting the specified selection criteria in systematic reviews than traditional search methods. Further prospective research is required.
为了评估和验证一种新的系统评价搜索方法，即全面搜索方法（ESM）的完成时间和结果，我们采用了实用比较法。
在文本文件中准备了单行搜索策略。通过一种新颖的优化技术确保术语的完整性。MS Word 中的宏几乎可以自动在数据库和接口之间转换语法。我们比较了 ESM 搜索的搜索特征，如搜索词和数据库的数量，以及结果，如纳入和检索的参考文献数量和精度，以及通过在 PubMed 搜索 2014 年至 2016 年发表的系统评价来确定的其他荷兰学术医院的搜索特征。我们将 ESM 的执行时间与从已发表文献中记录的搜索时间的次要比较器进行了比较，并与作者联系以获取未发表的数据。
我们确定了 73 篇已发表的 Erasmus MC 系统评价和 258 篇符合我们标准的其他荷兰学术医院发表的系统评价。我们汇总了 204 篇其他系统评价的搜索时间数据。ESM 搜索的不同之处在于使用了两倍多的数据库，检索到的参考文献多了 44%，最终系统评价中纳入的研究多了 20%，但搜索所需的时间仅为对照组的 8%。方法之间的相似之处包括精度和搜索词的数量。
评估的相似性和差异表明，ESM 是一种高效的方法，可以在系统评价中找到更多符合指定选择标准的参考文献，而传统的搜索方法则不然。需要进一步进行前瞻性研究。
