Optimal database combinations for literature searches in systematic reviews: a prospective exploratory study.
Optimal database combinations for literature searches in systematic reviews: a prospective exploratory study.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1186/s13643-017-0644-y
复制
发表时间：
2017-12-06
影响因子：
3.7
通讯作者：
Franco OH
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Bramer WM;Rethlefsen ML;Kleijnen J;Franco OH
在系统评价中，当检索相关参考文献时，建议使用多个数据库。然而，搜索数据库是费力和耗时的，因为搜索策略的语法是数据库特定的。我们的目的是确定在系统性综述中进行有效检索所需的数据库的最佳组合，以及目前在已发表综述中的做法是否合适。虽然以前的研究确定了数据库的覆盖范围，但我们分析了系统评价原始检索的实际检索结果。自2013年5月以来，第一作者前瞻性记录了他在其所在机构进行的系统综述检索的结果。PubMed用于识别使用我们的检索策略结果发表的系统性综述。对于每一篇已发表的系统性综述，我们提取了纳入研究的参考文献。使用前瞻性记录的结果和出版物中包含的研究，我们计算了单个数据库和组合数据库的召回率、精确度和阅读所需的数量。我们评估了数据库和组合实现不同召回水平的频率（即，95%）。对于最近发表的200篇系统评价的样本，我们计算了有多少篇使用了足够的数据库来确保95%的召回率。共纳入58篇已发表的系统评价，通过我们的数据库检索共识别出1746篇相关参考文献，而通过其他检索方法检索到84篇纳入的参考文献。纳入的参考文献中有16%（291篇文章）仅在单个数据库中找到; Embase产生了最独特的参考文献（n = 132）。Embase、MEDLINE、Web of Science Core Collection和Google Scholar的组合表现最好，在72%的系统综述中实现了98.3的总体召回率和100%的召回率。我们估计，60%的已发表的系统评价没有检索到95%的所有可用的相关参考文献，因为许多文献未能检索到重要的数据库。其他专业数据库（例如CINAHL或PsycInfo）为某些评论添加了独特的引用，其中评论的主题与数据库的焦点相关。系统评价中的最佳检索应至少检索Embase、MEDLINE、Web of Science和Google Scholar，作为保证充分和有效覆盖的最低要求。本文的在线版本（10.1186/s13643-017-0644-y）包含补充材料，可供授权用户使用。
Within systematic reviews, when searching for relevant references, it is advisable to use multiple databases. However, searching databases is laborious and time-consuming, as syntax of search strategies are database specific. We aimed to determine the optimal combination of databases needed to conduct efficient searches in systematic reviews and whether the current practice in published reviews is appropriate. While previous studies determined the coverage of databases, we analyzed the actual retrieval from the original searches for systematic reviews. Since May 2013, the first author prospectively recorded results from systematic review searches that he performed at his institution. PubMed was used to identify systematic reviews published using our search strategy results. For each published systematic review, we extracted the references of the included studies. Using the prospectively recorded results and the studies included in the publications, we calculated recall, precision, and number needed to read for single databases and databases in combination. We assessed the frequency at which databases and combinations would achieve varying levels of recall (i.e., 95%). For a sample of 200 recently published systematic reviews, we calculated how many had used enough databases to ensure 95% recall. A total of 58 published systematic reviews were included, totaling 1746 relevant references identified by our database searches, while 84 included references had been retrieved by other search methods. Sixteen percent of the included references (291 articles) were only found in a single database; Embase produced the most unique references (n = 132). The combination of Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science Core Collection, and Google Scholar performed best, achieving an overall recall of 98.3 and 100% recall in 72% of systematic reviews. We estimate that 60% of published systematic reviews do not retrieve 95% of all available relevant references as many fail to search important databases. Other specialized databases, such as CINAHL or PsycINFO, add unique references to some reviews where the topic of the review is related to the focus of the database. Optimal searches in systematic reviews should search at least Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Google Scholar as a minimum requirement to guarantee adequate and efficient coverage. The online version of this article (10.1186/s13643-017-0644-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
登录
查看更多内容
比较在Embase，Medline和Google Scholar：一项前瞻性研究中对120个系统评价进行搜索的覆盖范围，召回和精确度。
影响因子：
3.7
作者：
Bramer WM;Giustini D;Kramer BM
通讯作者：
Kramer BM
DOI：
10.1016/0010-4809(90)90042-b
发表时间：
1990-12-01
期刊：
COMPUTERS AND BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH
影响因子：
--
作者：
MCKIBBON, KA;HAYNES, RB;FITZGERALD, D
通讯作者：
FITZGERALD, D
影响因子：
3.7
作者：
Bramer WM;Giustini D;Kramer BM;Anderson P
通讯作者：
Anderson P
影响因子：
7.2
作者：
Rethlefsen, Melissa L.;Farrell, Ann M.;Brigham, Tara J.
通讯作者：
Brigham, Tara J.
影响因子：
7.2
作者：
Beckles, Zosia;Glover, Sarah;Alderson, Philip
通讯作者：
Alderson, Philip