我国干预类系统评价/Meta分析文献检索新挑战

目的:调查我国干预类系统评价/Meta分析文献检索现状。方法:以《中国循证医学杂志》、《循证医学》、《中国循证儿科杂志》和《中国循证心血管医学杂志》4种"循证"冠名期刊的官方网站为数据来源,根据纳入排除标准,纳入干预类随机对照试验的系统评价/Meta分析/荟萃分析/系统综述,时间截至2011年12月31日。结果:共纳入干预类系统评价/Meta分析487篇。96篇报告了详细的检索策略,检索了4个及以上数据库的313篇,检索频率较高的数据库包括PubMed/MEDLINE、EMBASE、Cochrane Library、CBM、CNKI等。常见组合有PubMed+EMBASE+Cochrane Library、CNKI+CBM+VIP、CNKI+CBM+VIP+WF、PubMed+Cochrane Library。77.0%的系统评价/Meta分析使用了手工检索和追踪参考文献等常用的辅助检索手段。结论:目前我国干预类系统评价/Meta分析存在检索策略细节报告不全面、数据库使用率低、辅助检索措施尤其是灰色文献的检索有待加强,以及未报告实施文献检索的人员等问题,系统评价/Meta分析研究人员应予重视。

New challenges facing retrieval of papers published in China on systematic evaluation and meta-analysis of intervention

Objective To investigate the papers published in China on systematic evaluation and meta-analysis of intervention. Methods The official Websites of Chinese Journal of Evidence-based Medicine, Evidence-based Medicine, Chinese Journal of Evidence-based Pediatrics and Chinese Journal of Evidence-based Cardiovascular Medicinewere used as data sources. Papers on systematic evaluation and meta-analysis of intervention published in the 4 journals were included in this study. Results Of the 487 papers on systematic evaluation and meta-analysis of intervention, 96 described their retrieval strategies in detail, 313 searched 4 or more databases. PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CBM and CNKI were the most commonly retrieved databases. PubMed + EMBASE + Cochrane Library, CNKI + CBM + VIP, CBM + CNKI + VIP + WF, and PubMed + Cochrane Library were the most commonly retrieved databases in combination. Seventy-seven percent of the 487 papers on systematic evaluation and meta-analysis of intervention used accessory retrieval methods, of which manual retrieval and reference retrieval were most frequently used.Conclusion The retrieval strategies are not described in detail,databases are not commonly retrieved, accessory retrieval especially gray literature retrieval is seldom performed, and those who retrieve the literature are not reported in the papers published in China on systematic intervention and meta-analysis of evaluation. Such problems should attract the attention of those who are engaged in research of systematic evaluation and meta-analysis.