Understanding why evidence from randomised clinical trials may not be retrieved from Medline: comparison of indexed and non-indexed records
Understanding why evidence from randomised clinical trials may not be retrieved from Medline: comparison of indexed and non-indexed records
复制标题
DOI：
10.1136/bmj.d7501
复制
发表时间：
2012-01-03
影响因子：
105.7
通讯作者：
Dickersin, Kay
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Susan, L.;Robinson, Karen A.;Dickersin, Kay
目的探讨随机对照试验报告有时未被编入索引的原因（“标记”）与RCT（随机对照试验）[pt]科克伦协作网和美国国家医学图书馆共同合作，对随机对照试验的记录进行识别和重新标记，1994年至2006年。数据来源：2005年Medline中发表的报告。主要结局指标：提供的试验信息类型（例如，主要结果、设计和方法），试验设计，结果572/591（97%）未标记的记录和578/594（97%）标记的记录包含来自随机对照试验的信息。未标记和标记报告的试验信息类型和设计不同。不到一半（234/572，41%，95%置信区间37%-45%）的未标记报告，但大多数标记报告（526/578，91%，89%-93%）描述了试验的主要结果。未标记的报告比标记的报告更可能包含设计和方法、基线特征、长期随访和次要分析的信息。主要结果的未标记报告比标记报告更可能来自使用交叉设计的试验（36% v 10%，差异25%，95%置信区间19%-32%）。标题为“随机对照试验”的医学主题是最常见的临床试验术语适用于未标记的报告，虽然超过一半的未标记的报告没有索引相关的trials.Conclusion的结果为基础的2005年，至少有3000条记录描述随机对照试验，但没有索引使用RCT [PT]可能已进入Medline之间的2006年和2011年。依赖于使用RCT的研究人员和医疗保健决策者可能会在他们的搜索中丢失重要证据，特别是设计和方法，基线特征，长期随访和次要数据分析。
Objective To explore why reports that seem to describe randomised controlled trials are sometimes not indexed ("tagged") with RCT (randomised controlled trial) [pt] (publication type) in Medline.Design Cross sectional study.Setting The Cochrane Collaboration and US National Library of Medicine worked together to identify and retag records of randomised controlled trials with RCT [pt], 1994 to 2006.Data source Published reports entered into Medline in 2005.Main outcome measures Type of trial information presented (for example, main results, design, and methods), trial design, and other Medline indexing terms applied.Results 572/591 (97%) untagged records and 578/594 (97%) tagged records contained information from randomised controlled trials. Type of trial information and design differed between untagged and tagged reports. Fewer than half (234/572, 41%, 95% confidence interval 37% to 45%) of untagged reports but most tagged reports (526/578, 91%, 89% to 93%) described the main results of the trial. Untagged reports were more likely than tagged reports to contain information on design and methods, baseline characteristics, long term follow-up, and secondary analyses. Untagged reports of main results were more likely than tagged reports to be from trials using a crossover design (36% v 10%, difference 25%, 95% confidence interval 19% to 32%). The Medical Subject Heading "Randomized Controlled Trials" was the most common clinical trial term applied to untagged reports, although more than half of untagged reports had no indexing related to trials.Conclusion Based on the results for 2005, at least 3000 records describing randomised controlled trials but not indexed using RCT [pt] may have been entered into Medline between 2006 and 2011. Researchers and healthcare decision makers relying on using RCT [pt] may be missing important evidence in their searches, particularly for design and methods, baseline characteristics, long term follow-up, and secondary data analyses.