基于Meta-analysis的循证检索探讨  

作　　者：孙思琴[1] 吴晓萍[2] 明红[1] 

机构地区：[1]泰山医学院,泰安271000 [2]泰安卫生学校,泰安271000

出　　处：《现代情报》2006年第4期162-163,169,共3页Journal of Modern Information

摘　　要：目的:调查Meta-analysis的作者们报道检索策略效果证据的范畴。材料:对近10年EBSCO数据库MEDLINE全文子集标引“Meta-analysis”为出版物类型的论文,进行随机抽样调查(n=100)。方法:将这些论文分为三类。结论:最后分析的93篇论文样本中,A类占8.6%(8篇),B类占61.3%(57篇),C类占30.1%(28篇)。讨论:A类论文报道了先前有效的、公开发表了的或者基于专家意见的检索策略。专家评审标准一定要力争得到进一步发展,那就要求Meta-analysis的作者,对他们检索策略的效果证据要加以报道。Objective： The objective of study is to investigate the extent to which the authors of the Meta-analysiss report proof of their retrieval strategies＇ effectiveness. Material： The authors of this article examined a random sample （n = 100） of articles from 1995 to 2004 full-text subset of MEDLINE indexed as ＂meta-analysis in pt.＂ Method： We classified these articles in three ways. Conclusion： The ninety-three articles in our final sample, eight （8.6%） were classified as category （A）, fifty-seven （61.3%） as （S）, and twenty-eight （30.1%） as （C）. Discussion： The articles in category A reported a previously validated search, a published strategy, or strategy based on expert opinion. The standards of Peer-review must be developed that require authors of Meta-analysiss to report evidence for the effectiveness about their retrieval strategies.

关 键 词：META-ANALYSIS 循证检索 MEDLINE 

分 类 号：G252.7[文化科学—图书馆学]