我国诊断性试验系统评价/Meta分析的检索情况调查分析  

Retrieval of papers published in China on systematic intervention evaluation and meta-analysis of diagnostic tests

作　　者：梁莉[1,2] 葛龙[1,2] 周为文[1,3] 刘银春[1,2] 徐俊峰[1,2] 石新彤[1,2] 安妮[1,2] 马继春[1] 娜和亚[1] 田金徽[1] 

机构地区：[1]兰州大学循证医学中心,甘肃兰州730000 [2]兰州大学第一临床医学院,甘肃兰州730000 [3]兰州大学第二临床医学院,甘肃兰州730000

出　　处：《中华医学图书情报杂志》2013年第5期9-16,共8页Chinese Journal of Medical Library and Information Science

基　　金：2011年兰州大学中央高校基本科研业务专项资金资助(lzjbky2011-13)

摘　　要：目的:分析我国作者发表的中文诊断试验系统评价/Meta分析文献检索与筛选方法。方法:用"诊断"、"特异度"、"敏感度"、"系统评价"、"Meta分析"和"系统综述"等检索词检索中国生物医学文献数据库,检索时间截至2011年。根据预先制定的纳入和排除标准纳入符合条件的诊断试验系统评价,提取系统评价的基本资料和检索数据库名称、检索策略及文献筛选方法等数据并输入Excel,用SPSS 17.0进行统计分析。结果:最终纳入235篇系统评价/Meta分析,其中176篇(占74.9%)系统评价/Meta分析对中英文数据库均进行了检索,29篇(占12.3%)只检索了中文数据库,28篇(占11.9%)只检索英文数据库,139篇(占67.8%)系统评价/Meta分析检索了2个及以上中文数据库,151篇(74.0%)系统评价/Meta分析检索了2个及以上英文数据库。检索频率较高的中文数据库依次是CNKI、CBM、VIP、万方,英文数据库依次是PubMed、EMBASE、Cochrane Library和OVID。47.2%的系统评价/Meta分析实施了人工检索,88.1%报道了检索起止时间,46.4%对参考文献进行了追踪,10.2%联系了专家或作者,8.9%使用了搜索引擎。一般诊断试验系统评价的检索词有目标疾病、待评价试验和诊断准确性指标,三部分均有报告的占44.3%,三部分均无报告的占4.7%;48.9%详细报道了文献的筛选步骤,但仅有12.3%附有筛查流程图。结论:目前诊断试验系统评价/Meta分析数据库检索不够全面,很少检索诊断试验数据库。建议今后系统评价研究者至少检索2种常用数据库,完善搜索引擎、追踪参考文献使用、检索策略以及文献筛选等方面的报道。Objective To analyze the papers published in China on systematic evaluation and meta-analysis of di- agnostic tests and their screening methods. Methods Papers on systematic evaluation and meta-analysis of diagnostic tests published in China before 2011 and covered in CBM were retrieved using the retrieval words including ＂diagnosis＂ ,＂specificity＂, ＂sensitivity＂, ＂systematic evaluation＂, ＂meta- analysis＂, and ＂ systematic reviews ＂. Their retrieved databases and retrieval strategies were analyzed using the SPSS 17.0. Results Of the 235 papers on systematic evalu- ation and meta-analysis of diagnostic tests that were includ- ed in this study, 176 （74.9%） retrieved databases both in Chinese and English, 29 （ 12.3% ） retrieved databases in Chinese, 28 （ 11.9% ） retrieved databases in English, 139 （67.8%） retrieved 2 or more databases in Chinese, 151 （74.0%） retrieved 2 or more databases in English. The most commonly retrieved databases in Chinese were CNKI, CBM, VIP, and Wanfang, the most frequently retrieved databases in English were PubMed, EMBASE, Coehrane Library, and OVID, whereas 47.2%, 88.1%, 46.4%, 10.2%, and 8.9% of the papers on systematic evaluation and meta-analysis of diagnostic tests reported manual re- trieval, retrieval start and end time, reference retrieval, contact with experts and authors, and search engine, respec- tively. Only 44.3% of the papers reported that ＂target disease＂, ＂tests to be evaluated＂ and ＂diagnostic accuracy＂ were used as retrieval words in literature search and 4.4% did not report that they used any of the 3 retrieval words, 48.9% reported their steps of screening papers, and 12.3% only provided a flow screening chart. Con^ltmion The databases have not covered all papers on systematic evaluation and recta-analysis of diagnostic tests and only a small number of papers on systematic evaluation and meta-analysis of diagnostic tests searched diagnostic tests da- tabases. Suggestions are thus put forward for those who are en

关 键 词：诊断性试验 系统评价 文献检索 文献筛查 循证医学 META分析 

分 类 号：G254.9[文化科学—图书馆学] R4[医药卫生—临床医学]