"Brimful of STARLITE": toward standards for reporting literature searches.
"Brimful of STARLITE": toward standards for reporting literature searches.
复制标题
“充满星光”：朝着报告文献检索的标准迈进。
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2006
影响因子：
2
通讯作者：
A. Booth
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
A. Booth
上下文
定性研究的系统评价将对医疗保健的理解从有效性扩展到可接受性和用户观点。
目的
本文调查了定性系统评价的报告，并通过描述用于识别纳入文章的技术，提出了文献检索报告的标准。
数据来源和研究选择
对MEDLINE进行了检索，以获得1988年至2004年12月发表的定性系统评价，并通过检索CINAHL、Web of Knowledge（包括Science and Social Sciences Citation Index）和科克伦方法学注册库以及使用Copernic Agent Professional元检索代理进行的互联网检索提供支持。如果研究在审查卫生保健研究时使用了定性综合技术，则纳入研究。排除叙述性综述。
数据提取
作者，出版年份，抽样策略，数据库，关键词，和其他方法使用的提取。
资料综合
确定了64项研究，其中43项符合本综述的纳入标准。编制了检索方法摘要，并用于构建STARLITE助记符（抽样策略、研究类型、方法、年份范围、限制、纳入和排除、使用的术语、电子来源）。
结论
定性系统评价的检索方法存在相当大的差异。虽然在制定审查方法的过程中，方法的多样性是适当的，但主要关切仍然是缺乏公认的标准，从而导致报告质量低下。
CONTEXT
Systematic reviews of qualitative research studies extend understanding of health care beyond effectiveness to acceptability and user views.
OBJECTIVE
The paper surveys reports of qualitative systematic reviews and, by characterizing techniques used to identify articles for inclusion, proposes standards for reporting of literature searches.
DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION
A search of MEDLINE was performed for qualitative systematic reviews published from 1988 to December 2004, supported by searches of CINAHL, Web of Knowledge (including the Science and Social Sciences Citation Index), and the Cochrane Methodology Register, and Internet searches using the Copernic Agent Professional meta-search agent. Studies were included if they used techniques of qualitative synthesis in reviewing research studies in health care. Narrative reviews were excluded.
DATA EXTRACTION
Authors, year of publication, sampling strategy, databases, keywords, and other approaches used were extracted.
DATA SYNTHESIS
Sixty-four studies were identified, and forty-three met inclusion criteria for this review. A summary of searching methods was produced and used to construct the STARLITE mnemonic (sampling strategy, type of study, approaches, range of years, limits, inclusion and exclusions, terms used, electronic sources).
CONCLUSIONS
Considerable variation exists in search methods for qualitative systematic reviews. While diversity in methods is appropriate during the development of review methodology, major concerns remain about the absence of an accepted standard and the consequent poor quality of reporting.
应对对自我完整性的威胁。
DOI：
10.1097/00012272-199706000-00003
发表时间：
1997
期刊：
ANS. Advances in nursing science
影响因子：
--
作者：
Morse,JM
通讯作者：
Morse,JM