CLINICAL SEARCH RETRIEVAL FROM FOUR ELECTRONIC DATABASES

从四个电子数据库进行临床检索

• 批准号: 2897406
• 负责人: R BRIAN HAYNES
• 金额: $ 9.98万
• 依托单位: MCMASTER UNIVERSITY
• 依托单位国家: 美国
• 财政年份: 2000
• 资助国家: 美国
• 起止时间: 2000-03-13 至 2002-03-31
• 项目状态: 已结题
• 来源: https://reporter.nih.gov/project-details/2897406
• 关键词: clinical research; data collection methodology /evaluation; experimental designs; health care facility information system; health services research tag; human data; indexing; information retrieval; information system analysis; information systems; vocabulary development for information system

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.

该提案中的项目是一系列研究的一部分，旨在寻求制定检索策略的方法，以改善从 MEDLINE、Embase、PsycLIT 和/或 CINAHL 等大型书目数据库中检索临床相关且科学合理的研究报告。 检索策略的目的是 1) 协助医疗保健提供者进行自己的检索； 2) 帮助已发表的有关卫生保健干预措施的证据的审阅者检索所有相关引文； 3) 为图书馆员提供资源，帮助医疗保健提供者构建自己的检索； 4) 向数据库生产者提供有关其索引过程的输入。 拟议的项目涉及完善利用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 进行的研究中，我们记录了超过 60,000 个“方法限制”的检索性能，即旨在检测符合医疗保健问题的病因学、预后、诊断、预防和治疗研究的基本科学标准的应用临床研究的搜索策略。 为了扩展这项研究，本次调查要解决的问题是： 1. 1999 年 MEDLINE、Embase、PsycLIT 和 CINAHL 文件中的方法学术语的操作特征是什么，这些术语从内容和质量方面定义了对人类疾病的原因、病程、诊断、预防或治疗或定性方面的临床问题最重要的研究？ 2. 能否创建结合术语以优化上述电子数据库和主题的产量的经验搜索策略（“对冲”）？ 3. 数据库的检索性能比较如何？ 4. 当使用相同的期刊、子集时，我们之前的研究中得出的方法学检索策略在最近的 MEDLINE 文件中的表现如何，即，当使用 1999 年发表的引文时，1986 年和 1991 年 MEDLINE 数据库中得出的检索策略的表现如何？ 5. 该项目开发的搜索策略与其他小组发布的搜索策略相比如何？为了评估检索策略，与研究设计特征相关的索引术语和文本将被视为诊断测试，而对文献的手动审查将被视为黄金标准。 通过人工审查，文章将被定义为具有相关内容并符合临床实践的基本方法学标准。 检索策略的敏感性、特异性、准确性和精密度将在 4 个电子数据库中分别确定。