CLINICAL SEARCH RETRIEVAL FROM FOUR ELECTRONIC DATABASES

本提案中的项目是一系列研究的一部分，旨在寻求开发搜索策略的方法，以改进从MEDLINE， Embase， PsycLIT和/或CINAHL等大型书目数据库中检索临床相关和科学合理的研究报告。搜索策略的目的是1)帮助卫生保健提供者进行自己的搜索；2)帮助卫生保健干预措施已发表证据的审稿人检索所有相关引文；3)为图书馆员提供资源，帮助医疗服务提供者构建自己的搜索；4)为数据库生产者的索引过程提供输入。拟议的项目包括完善利用这些电子数据库用于临床目的的方法，以便最终测试其对临床实践的影响。在我们之前使用MEDLINE的研究中，我们记录了超过60,000个“方法学屏障”的检索性能，即旨在检测符合医疗保健问题病因、预后、诊断、预防和治疗研究基本科学标准的应用临床研究的搜索策略。为了扩展本研究，本调查需要解决的问题是：1。在1999年MEDLINE、Embase、PsycLIT和CINAHL的文件中，从内容和质量两方面来定义研究最重要的方法学术语的操作特征是什么？这些方法学术语对有关人类疾病的原因、病程、诊断、预防或治疗或定性方面的临床问题都是如此。2. 是否可以创建经验搜索策略（“对冲”），结合上述电子数据库和主题的术语来优化产量？3. 这些数据库在检索性能方面比较如何？4. 在使用同一期刊、子集时，我们之前的研究中导出的方法搜索策略在最近的MEDLINE文件中表现如何？即，在使用1999年发表的引文时，从1986年和1991年MEDLINE数据库中导出的搜索策略表现如何？5. 与其他小组发布的搜索策略相比，本项目开发的搜索策略如何？为了评估搜索策略，与研究设计特征相关的索引词和文本将被视为诊断测试，对文献的人工审查将被视为金标准。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。将在4个电子数据库中分别确定检索策略的敏感性、特异性、准确性和精密度。

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.