Department of Design and Communication, Kolding, University of Southern Denmark.
Department of Psychiatry Middelfart, Research & Development Unit, Middelfart, Region of Southern Denmark; Department of Regional Health Research, Center for Psychiatric Nursing and Health Research, Odense, University of Southern Denmark.
J Clin Epidemiol. 2019 Oct;114:118-124. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.06.013. Epub 2019 Jun 25.
Retrieving the qualitative literature can be challenging, but the number and specific choice of databases are key factors. The aim of the present study is to provide guidance for the choice of databases for retrieving qualitative health research.
Seventy-one qualitative systematic reviews, from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and JBI database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports, including 927 qualitative studies, were used to analyze the coverage of the qualitative literature in nine bibliographic databases.
The results show that 94.4% of the qualitative studies are indexed in at least one database, with a lower coverage for publication types other than journal articles. Maximum recall with two databases is 89.1%, with three databases recall increases to 92% and maximum recall with four databases is 93.1%. The remaining 6.9% of the publications consists of 1.3% scattered across five databases and 5.6% that are not indexed in any of the nine databases used in this study.
Retrieval in one or a few-although well selected-databases does not provide all the relevant qualitative studies. The remaining studies needs to be located using several other databases and alternative search strategies.
检索定性文献可能具有挑战性,但数据库的数量和具体选择是关键因素。本研究旨在为检索定性健康研究的数据库选择提供指导。
从 Cochrane 系统评价数据库和 JBI 系统评价和实施报告数据库中检索到 71 篇定性系统评价,共包含 927 篇定性研究,用于分析 9 个书目数据库中定性文献的涵盖情况。
结果表明,至少有一个数据库索引收录了 94.4%的定性研究,但期刊文章以外的出版类型收录率较低。使用两个数据库的最大召回率为 89.1%,使用三个数据库的召回率增加到 92%,使用四个数据库的最大召回率为 93.1%。其余 6.9%的文献包括 1.3%分散在五个数据库中,5.6%的文献未被本研究中使用的 9 个数据库中的任何一个索引。
在一个或几个(尽管经过精心选择)数据库中进行检索并不能提供所有相关的定性研究。需要使用其他几个数据库和替代搜索策略来定位其余的研究。