Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Edited by Julian P. T. Higgins &
Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Edited by Julian P. T. Higgins &
复制标题
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2006
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
在科克伦综述中引用的研究中，约10%的研究来源于S和其他灰色文献（Mallett 2002）。会议摘要中报告的试验中有一半以上从未全文发表，而最终全文发表的试验与从未全文发表的试验相比，存在系统性差异（谢勒2003）。此外，一般来说，灰色文献比医疗保健期刊更有可能包含“负面”报告（McAuley 2000）。因此，未能识别会议记录中报告的试验可能会影响结果或威胁系统评价的有效性。希望手动搜索期刊或会议记录以确定研究报告供其审查的作者应首先咨询基于其CRG的编辑。CRG的Trials Search Coordinator/Review Group Coordinator可以确定期刊或会议记录是否已经被检索过，如果没有，Coordinator可以在Master List上登记检索，并提供手工检索的培训。培训材料可在美国科克伦中心网站（http：//www.cochrane.us/hsmain.htm）上获得。关于期刊检索的启动、期刊检索的进展、检索状态等的所有通信都需要由美国科克伦中心的工作人员与试验检索协调员/审查小组协调员之间进行。5.1.3查阅参考文献列表作者应查阅所获文献的参考文献列表（包括来自先前发表的系统评价的文献），以识别相关报告。从一篇文章到另一篇文章的跟踪参考过程通常是确定可能纳入综述的研究的有效方法。由于研究者可能会选择性地引用具有阳性结果的研究（Gotzsche 1987; Ravnskov 1992），因此参考文献列表不应被用作确定综述报告的唯一方法，而应作为其他方法的辅助方法。5.1.4检查其他综述一些最方便和最明显的潜在相关研究的参考来源是现有的综述。应获得先前发表的关于感兴趣主题的综述的副本，并检查原始研究的参考文献。除了科克伦系统评价数据库外，科克伦图书馆还包括效果评价摘要数据库（DARE），这是一个由英国约克的NHS评价和传播中心创建的数据库，提供了以前发表的医疗保健效果评价的信息。MEDLINE、EMBASE和其他书目数据库也可用于识别评论文章。在MEDLINE中，最合适的综述文章将在发表类型术语“荟萃分析”和“综述”、“学术”下进行索引。已经制定了检索策略，以加强对这些类型出版物的识别（Boynton 1998）。5.1.5电子数据库的印刷版MEDLINE和EMBASE分别收录了1966年和1974年至今的引文，而《医学索引》和《医学文摘》则分别收录了1879年和1948年的引文。搜索早期印刷的主题索引可能是值得的，特别是如果有理由相信有早期的干预研究正在审查。Science Citation Index是SciSearch的印刷版（见5.1.1.3），用于相同的通用目的，即列出发表的文章随后被引用的位置。Science Citation Index比1974年开始的SciSearch更全面。
s and other grey literature have been shown to be sources of approximately 10% of the studies referenced in Cochrane reviews (Mallett 2002). Over one-half of trials reported in conference abstract never reach full publication, and those that are eventually published in full have been shown to be systematically different than those that are never published in full (Scherer 2003). In addition, grey literature in general has been found to be more likely than health care journals to contain ‘negative’ reports (McAuley 2000). Thus, failure to identify trials reported in conference proceedings might affect the results or threaten the validity of a systematic review. Authors who wish to handsearch journals or conference proceedings to identify reports of studies for their review should first consult with the editorial based of their CRG. The CRG’s Trials Search Coordinator/Review Group Coordinator can determine whether the journal or conference proceedings has already been searched, and, if it has not, the Coordinator can register the search on the Master List and provide training in handsearching. Training material is available on the US Cochrane Center web site (http://www.cochrane.us/hsmain.htm) All correspondence regarding the initiation of a journal search, progress of a journal search, status of a search etc needs to be between staff at the US Cochrane Center and the Trials Search Coordinator/Review Group Coordinator. 5.1.3 Checking reference lists Authors should check the reference lists of articles obtained (including those from previously published systematic reviews) to identify relevant reports. The process of following up references from one article to another is generally an efficient means of identifying studies for possible inclusion in a review. Because investigators may selectively cite studies with positive results (Gotzsche 1987; Ravnskov 1992), reference lists should never be used as a sole approach to identifying reports for a review, but rather as an adjunct to other approaches. 5.1.4 Checking other reviews Some of the most convenient and obvious sources of references to potentially relevant studies are existing reviews. Copies of previously published reviews on the topic of interest should be obtained and checked for references to the original studies. As well as the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, The Cochrane Library includes the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) a database produced by the NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination in York, UK, that provides information on previously published reviews of the effects of healthcare. MEDLINE, EMBASE and other bibliographic databases can also be used to identify review articles. In MEDLINE, the most appropriate review articles would be indexed under the Publication Type terms META-ANALYSIS and REVIEW, ACADEMIC. Search strategies have been developed to enhance identification of these types of publication (Boynton 1998). 5.1.5 Print versions of electronic databases While MEDLINE and EMBASE include citations from 1966 and 1974 to the present, respectively, Index Medicus and Excerpta Medica, the print versions of these databases, include citations from 1879 and 1948, respectively. Searching the earlier printed subject indexes may be worthwhile, especially if there is reason to believe that there were early studies of the intervention being reviewed. Science Citation Index is the print version of SciSearch (see Section 5.1.1.3) and is used for the same general purpose, i.e. for listings of where a published article was subsequently cited. Science Citation Index is more comprehensive than SciSearch, which began in 1974.