《年鉴》引文客观质量指标分析：对医学文献数据库检索者的启示

An analysis of objective quality indicators on Year Book citations: implications for MEDLINE searchers.

作者信息

Johnson E D, McKinin E J, Sievert M E, Reid J C

机构信息

J. Otto Lottes Health Sciences Library, University of Missouri-Columbia 65212, USA.

出版信息

Bull Med Libr Assoc. 1997 Oct;85(4):378-84.

PMID:9431427

原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC226295/

Abstract

PURPOSE

This study is an analysis of Mosby Year Book citations from Ovid Online's Comprehensive Core Medical Library (CCML). The purpose of this study was twofold: (1) to determine whether Year Book citations were more likely to be judged "key" than non-Year Book citations by clinicians; and (2) to determine whether the MEDLINE record of Year Book citations evaluated as key contained objective quality indicators that searchers might use to target key articles.

BACKGROUND

As part of the MEDLINE/Full-Text Research Project, health care professionals evaluated search output from CCML on a five-point scale. The scale included the choice "key" for those items which the evaluator would not want to miss. Because the output contained items from the Year Book series, it was possible to determine whether the Year Book items were evaluated as key more frequently than expected.

METHODS

This study analyzes the MEDLINE records corresponding to 110 references from the Mosby Year Book series evaluated as key by clinicians receiving search output from CCML. The records were examined for the presence of such searchable elements as Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms and publication types related to study design, evidence of research support, inclusion in the Abridged Index Medicus (AIM) subset, and a comments field. Also noted were the presence of a structured abstract, study design details in the author abstract, and inclusion in more than one Year Book.

RESULTS

A chi-square test (p < .001 indicated that the proportion (33%) of Year Book citations marked key on the searches was significantly higher than that of non-Year Book citations (18%). When the occurrence of the searchable elements was compared to MEDLINE as a whole, the following access points appeared more frequently in the key Year Book records: study design terms categorized under epidemiologic methods in the MeSH Tree Structures; the checktag comparative study; AIM subset; comments field; and, publication types (pt) clinical trial, randomized controlled trial, multicenter study, and meta-analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

These searchable elements should be helpful in targeting some, but not all, key articles in MEDLINE.

摘要

目的

本研究分析了来自Ovid在线综合核心医学图书馆（CCML）的《莫斯比年鉴》引文。本研究的目的有两个：（1）确定临床医生是否更有可能将《年鉴》引文判定为“关键”引文，而非非《年鉴》引文；（2）确定被评估为关键的《年鉴》引文的MEDLINE记录是否包含搜索者可用于定位关键文章的客观质量指标。

背景

作为MEDLINE/全文研究项目的一部分，医疗保健专业人员对CCML的搜索输出进行了五分制评估。该量表包括为评估者不想错过的那些项目选择“关键”。由于输出包含《年鉴》系列的项目，因此可以确定《年鉴》项目被评估为关键的频率是否高于预期。

方法

本研究分析了与110条来自《莫斯比年鉴》系列的参考文献相对应的MEDLINE记录，这些参考文献被接收CCML搜索输出的临床医生评估为关键。检查记录中是否存在诸如医学主题词（MeSH）术语和与研究设计相关的出版类型、研究支持证据、是否包含在《医学索引节略版》（AIM）子集中以及评论字段等可搜索元素。还记录了是否存在结构化摘要、作者摘要中的研究设计细节以及是否被收录在不止一本《年鉴》中。

结果

卡方检验（p <.001）表明，在搜索中被标记为关键的《年鉴》引文比例（33%）显著高于非《年鉴》引文（18%）。当将可搜索元素的出现情况与整个MEDLINE进行比较时，以下检索入口在关键的《年鉴》记录中出现得更频繁：MeSH树形结构中归类在流行病学方法下的研究设计术语；核对标签“比较研究”；AIM子集；评论字段；以及出版类型（pt）“临床试验”“随机对照试验”“多中心研究”和“荟萃分析”。