首页> 外文OA文献 >Improving search efficiency for systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy: an exploratory study to assess the viability of limiting to MEDLINE, EMBASE and reference checking.
【2h】

Improving search efficiency for systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy: an exploratory study to assess the viability of limiting to MEDLINE, EMBASE and reference checking.

机译:提高对诊断测试准确性的系统评价的搜索效率:一项探索性研究,以评估限制mEDLINE,EmBasE和参考检查的可行性。

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

BACKGROUND: Increasing numbers of systematic reviews evaluating the diagnostic test accuracy of technologies are being published. Currently, review teams tend to apply conventional systematic review standards to identify relevant studies for inclusion, for example sensitive searches of multiple bibliographic databases. There has been little evaluation of the efficiency of searching only one or two such databases for this type of review. The aim of this study was to assess the viability of an approach that restricted searches to MEDLINE, EMBASE and the reference lists of included studies. ududMETHODS: A convenience sample of nine Health Technology Assessment (HTA) systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy, with 302 included citations, was analysed to determine the number and proportion of included citations that were indexed in and retrieved from MEDLINE and EMBASE. An assessment was also made of the number and proportion of citations not retrieved from these databases but that could have been identified from the reference lists of included citations. ududRESULTS: 287/302 (95 %) of the included citations in the nine reviews were indexed across MEDLINE and EMBASE. The reviews' searches of MEDLINE and EMBASE accounted for 85 % of the included citations (256/302). Of the forty-six (15 %) included citations not retrieved by the published searches, 24 (8 %) could be found in the reference lists of included citations. Only 22/302 (7 %) of the included citations were not found by the proposed, more efficient approach. ududCONCLUSIONS: The proposed approach would have accounted for 280/302 (93 %) of included citations in this sample of nine systematic reviews. This exploratory study suggests that there might be a case for restricting searches for systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy studies to MEDLINE, EMBASE and the reference lists of included citations. The conduct of such reviews might be rendered more efficient by using this approach.
机译:背景技术:越来越多的评估技术诊断测试准确性的系统评价正在发布。当前,审核小组倾向于应用常规的系统审核标准来识别要纳入的相关研究,例如对多个书目数据库进行敏感搜索。对于这种类型的评论,仅搜索一个或两个这样的数据库的效率几乎没有评估。这项研究的目的是评估将检索限制在MEDLINE,EMBASE和纳入研究的参考文献清单中的方法的可行性。方法:对9种卫生技术评估(HTA)对诊断测试准确性的系统评价进行了便利抽样,分析了302种被引文献,以确定被索引并从MEDLINE和EMBASE中检索的被引文献的数量和比例。还对未从这些数据库中检索到但可以从包含引文的参考清单中识别出来的引文的数量和比例进行评估。结果:九份评论中的287/302(95%)被包括在MEDLINE和EMBASE中。评论对MEDLINE和EMBASE的搜索占被引用文献的85%(256/302)。在未通过公开搜索检索到的四十六(15%)个引用中,有24个(8%)可以在包含引用的参考文献列表中找到。提议的更有效的方法未找到所包括的引文中的22/302(7%)。 ud ud结论:在九个系统评价的样本中,所提出的方法将占被引用文献的280/302(93%)。这项探索性研究表明,可能存在将对诊断测试准确性研究的系统评价的搜索限制为MEDLINE,EMBASE和所引用文献的参考列表的情况。通过使用这种方法,可以使这种审查的效率更高。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 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