首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>The Aesculapian >Brimful of STARLITE: toward standards for reporting literature searches
【2h】

Brimful of STARLITE: toward standards for reporting literature searches

机译:轻巧的STARLITE:朝着报告文献检索的标准迈进

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

>Context: Systematic reviews of qualitative research studies extend understanding of health care beyond effectiveness to acceptability and user views.>Objective: The paper surveys reports of qualitative systematic reviews and, by characterizing techniques used to identify articles for inclusion, proposes standards for reporting of literature searches.>Data Sources and Study Selection: A search of MEDLINE was performed for qualitative systematic reviews published from 1988 to December 2004, supported by searches of CINAHL, Web of Knowledge (including the Science and Social Sciences Citation Index), and the Cochrane Methodology Register, and Internet searches using the Copernic Agent Professional meta-search agent. Studies were included if they used techniques of qualitative synthesis in reviewing research studies in health care. Narrative reviews were excluded.>Data Extraction: Authors, year of publication, sampling strategy, databases, keywords, and other approaches used were extracted.>Data Synthesis: Sixty-four studies were identified, and forty-three met inclusion criteria for this review. A summary of searching methods was produced and used to construct the STARLITE mnemonic (sampling strategy, type of study, approaches, range of years, limits, inclusion and exclusions, terms used, electronic sources).>Conclusions: Considerable variation exists in search methods for qualitative systematic reviews. While diversity in methods is appropriate during the development of review methodology, major concerns remain about the absence of an accepted standard and the consequent poor quality of reporting.
机译:>背景:定性研究的系统评价将对卫生保健的理解从有效性延伸到可接受性和用户观点。>目的:本文通过定性技术来对定性系统评价的报告进行调查>数据来源和研究选择:对MEDLINE进行了检索,以对1988年至2004年12月间发表的定性系统评价进行研究。 ,知识网(包括科学和社会科学引文索引)和Cochrane方法注册以及使用Copernic Agent Professional元搜索代理进行的Internet搜索。如果研究使用定性合成技术来审查医疗研究,则将其包括在内。 >数据提取:提取作者,出版年份,抽样策略,数据库,关键字和其他使用的方法。>数据合成:确定,并且有43个符合此审查的纳入标准。总结了搜索方法,并将其用于构建STARLITE助记符(采样策略,研究类型,方法,年份范围,限制,包含和排除,使用的术语,电子资源)。>结论:定性系统评价的搜索方法存在很大差异。尽管在审查方法的制定过程中方法的多样性是适当的,但主要问题仍然是缺乏公认的标准以及报告质量较差。

著录项

  • 期刊名称 The Aesculapian
  • 作者

    Andrew Booth;

  • 作者单位
  • 年(卷),期 2006(94),4
  • 年度 2006
  • 页码 421-429 e205
  • 总页数 10
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号