J Med Libr Assoc. 2021 Jul 1;109(3):388-394. doi: 10.5195/jmla.2021.1150.
A growing volume of studies address methods for performing systematic reviews of qualitative studies. One such methodological aspect is the conceptual framework used to structure the review question and plan the search strategy for locating relevant studies. The purpose of this case study was to evaluate the retrieval potential of each element of conceptual frameworks in qualitative systematic reviews in the health sciences.
The presence of elements from conceptual frameworks in publication titles, abstracts, and controlled vocabulary in CINAHL and PubMed was analyzed using a set of qualitative reviews and their included studies as a gold standard. Using a sample of 101 publications, we determined whether particular publications could be retrieved if a specific element from the conceptual framework was used in the search strategy.
We found that the relative recall of conceptual framework elements varied considerably, with higher recall for patient/population (99%) and research type (97%) and lower recall for intervention/phenomenon of interest (74%), outcome (79%), and context (61%).
The use of patient/population and research type elements had high relative recall for qualitative studies. However, other elements should be used with great care due to lower relative recall.
越来越多的研究探讨了进行定性研究系统评价的方法。其中一个方法学方面是用于构建综述问题和规划搜索策略以定位相关研究的概念框架。本案例研究旨在评估健康科学领域定性系统评价中概念框架各个要素的检索潜力。
使用一组定性综述及其纳入的研究作为金标准，分析概念框架要素在出版物标题、摘要和 CINAHL 和 PubMed 中的受控词汇中的存在情况。使用 101 篇出版物的样本，我们确定了如果在搜索策略中使用概念框架的特定要素，是否可以检索到特定出版物。
我们发现，概念框架要素的相对召回率差异很大，患者/人群（99%）和研究类型（97%）的召回率较高，而干预/感兴趣的现象（74%）、结果（79%）和背景（61%）的召回率较低。
使用患者/人群和研究类型要素对定性研究具有较高的相对召回率。然而，由于相对召回率较低，其他要素的使用应谨慎。
