CLINICAL SEARCH RETRIEVAL FROM FOUR ELECTRONIC DATABASES

这项建议中的项目是一系列调查的一部分，这些调查寻求制定搜索策略的方法，以改进从包括MEDLINE、Embase、JuncLIT和/或CINAHL在内的大型书目数据库中检索具有临床相关性和科学依据的研究报告。搜索策略的目的是1)帮助卫生保健提供者进行他们自己的检索；2)帮助关于卫生保健干预措施的已发表证据的审查者检索所有相关的引文；3)为图书馆员提供资源以帮助卫生保健提供者建立他们自己的检索；以及4)向数据库制作者提供关于其索引过程的信息。拟议的项目包括完善将这些电子数据库用于临床目的的方法，以便最终测试对临床实践的影响。在我们之前使用MEDLINE的研究中，我们记录了超过60,000个“方法学模糊限制语”的检索性能，即搜索策略，旨在检测符合医疗保健问题的病因、预后、诊断、预防和治疗研究的基本科学标准的应用型临床研究研究。为了扩展这项研究，这项调查中要解决的问题是：1.在MEDLINE、Embase、JuncLIT和CINAHL 1999年的文件中，定义了从内容和质量上对临床问题最重要的研究的方法论术语的操作特征是什么？这些研究涉及人类疾病的病因、过程、诊断、预防或治疗，或定性方面？2.能否创建经验性搜索策略(“对冲”)，将这些术语组合在一起，以优化上述电子数据库和主题的收益？3.这些数据库在检索性能方面如何比较？4.当使用相同的期刊子集时，我们先前研究中得出的方法论搜索策略在较新的MEDLINE文件中的表现如何，即在1986年和1991年MEDLINE数据库中得出的搜索策略在使用1999年发表的引文时表现如何？5.本项目中制定的搜索策略与其他小组发表的搜索策略相比如何？为了评估搜索策略，与研究设计特征相关的索引词和文本词将被视为诊断测试，手动审查文献将被视为金标准。手工评审将文章定义为具有相关内容并符合临床实践的基本方法学标准。搜索战略的敏感性、特异性、准确性和精确度将在4个电子数据库中逐一确定。

The projects in this proposal are part of a series of investigations seeking ways to develop search strategies that will improve retrieval of clinically relevant and scientifically sound study reports from large bibliographic databases including MEDLINE, Embase, PsycLIT and/or CINAHL. The purpose of the search strategies is 1) to assist health care providers to do their own searches; 2) to help reviewers of published evidence concerning health care interventions to retrieve all relevant citations; 3) to provide resources for librarians to help health care providers to construct their own searches; and 4) to provide input to the database producers on their indexing processes. The proposed projects involve perfecting ways to harness these electronic databases for clinical purposes so the effect on clinical practice can be eventually tested. In our previous research using MEDLINE, we documented the retrieval performance of over 60,000 "methodologic hedges", that is, search strategies designed to detect applied clinical research studies that meet basic scientific standards for study of the etiology, prognosis, diagnosis, prevention and treatment of health care problems. To extend this research the questions to be addressed in this investigation are: 1. What are the operating characteristics, in 1999 files of MEDLINE, Embase, PsycLIT, and CINAHL, of methodologic terms that define studies of most importance, in terms of both content and quality, to clinical questions about the cause, course, diagnosis, prevention or therapy, or qualitative aspects of human disorders?; 2. Can empirical search strategies ("hedges") be created that combine terms to optimize the yield from the above noted electronic databases and topics? 3. How do the databases compare in terms of their retrieval performance?; 4. How well do the methodologic search strategies derived in our previous research perform in more recent MEDLINE files when using the same journal, subset, i.e., how well do the search strategies derived in the 1986 and 1991 MEDLINE databases perform when using citations published in 1999?; 5. How do the search strategies developed in this project compare with those published by other groups? To evaluate the search strategies, index terms and textwords related to research design features will be treated as diagnostic tests and a manual review of the literature will be treated as the gold standard . Articles will be defined as having relevant content and meeting basic methodologic criteria for clinical practice by the manual review. The sensitivity, specificity, accuracy and precision of the search strategies will be determined in each of the 4 electronic databases.