Department of Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology, University College London, London, UK.
European Centre for Environment and Human Health, University of Exeter Medical School, Truro, UK.
Res Synth Methods. 2020 Sep;11(5):627-640. doi: 10.1002/jrsm.1426. Epub 2020 Jul 1.
This study aimed to address the question: what does "effectiveness" mean to researchers in the context of literature searching for systematic reviews? We conducted a thematic analysis of responses to an e-mail survey. Eighty-nine study authors, whose studies met inclusion in a recent review (2018), were contacted via e-mail and asked three questions; one directly asking the question: in literature searching, what does effective (or effectiveness in) literature searching mean to you? Thirty-eight (46%) responses were received from diverse professional groups, including: literature searchers, systematic reviewers, clinicians and researchers. A shared understanding of what effectiveness means was not identified. Instead, five themes were developed from data: (a) effectiveness is described as a metric; (b) effectiveness is a balance between metrics; (c) effectiveness can be categorized by search purpose; (d) effectiveness is an outcome; and, (e) effectiveness is an experimental concept. We propose that these themes constitute a preliminary typology of understandings. No single definition of effectiveness was identified. The proposed typology suggests that different researchers have differing understandings of effectiveness. This could lead to uncertainty as to the aim and the purpose of literature searches and confusion about the outcomes. The typology offers a potential route for further exploration.
在为系统评价进行文献检索的背景下,对于研究人员来说,“有效性”意味着什么?我们对电子邮件调查的回复进行了主题分析。通过电子邮件联系了最近一篇综述(2018 年)中符合纳入标准的 89 名研究作者,并向他们提出了三个问题;其中一个直接问到:在文献检索中,有效的(或有效性)文献检索对您意味着什么?我们收到了来自不同专业群体的 38 份(46%)回复,包括:文献检索人员、系统评价人员、临床医生和研究人员。我们没有发现对有效性含义的共同理解。相反,从数据中得出了五个主题:(a)有效性被描述为一种衡量标准;(b)有效性是衡量标准之间的平衡;(c)有效性可以根据搜索目的进行分类;(d)有效性是一个结果;以及,(e)有效性是一个实验概念。我们提出这些主题构成了对理解的初步分类法。没有确定单一的有效性定义。所提出的分类法表明,不同的研究人员对有效性有不同的理解。这可能导致对文献检索的目的和目的产生不确定性,并对结果产生混淆。该分类法为进一步探索提供了一个潜在途径。