我国保留灌肠插管深度临床研究的文献计量学分析

Bibliometric analysis of the clinical studies about catheter depth of the retention enema in China

目的了解我国保留灌肠插管深度的临床研究现状和发展趋势。方法检索中国知网数据库（CNKI）、维普中文科技期刊数据库（VIP）、中国生物医学文献数据库（CBM）和万方数据库（WanFang Data）中关于保留灌肠插管深度的临床研究文献，检索年限均从建库日期开始至2016年1月26日。采用文献计量学方法，从文献的年代、期刊、地域、著作单位和基金等分布，文献类型及纳入研究特征等方面进行分析。结果共纳入76篇文献，近年来发文量保持平稳趋势，以期刊论文为主，多发表在护理类期刊，山东、广东和四川省发文量较多，作者单位集中于医院，但研究缺乏基金支持；58篇为随机对照试验（RCT）；试验组插管深度3—60cm；纳入文献样本量15～560例，均未进行样本量估算；8篇报告了纳人标准，6篇报告了排除标准；50篇报告了组间基线可比。结论我国保留灌肠插管深度研究处于平稳阶段，但在研究设计和研究方法学质量等方面仍有待进一步提高。在今后的科研设计中应遵循随机、对照和盲法的原则，制定严格的纳入和排除标准．合理设置对照，以保证研究结果的真实性和可靠性。

Objective To know the research status and the tendency of development about the catheter depth of retention enema. Methods All the clinical studies about the catheter depth of retention enema were searched in China national knowledge internet （CNKI） , VIP, Chinese biological medical disc and WanFang database from January 26th 2016. Bibliometric analysis was used to analyze these articles from the distribution of the year, periodical, region, work unit, fund, study type and the characteristics of included studies. Results A total of 76 articles were included and the number of published articles was stable in recent years. The majority was journal articles and was published in nursing journals. Most of the published articles were from Shandong, Guangdong and Sichuan province. Most of the authors were work in hospitals. Funding source was poor. 58 （76. 3%） articles were about random control trails （RCTs）. The catheter depth in the experimental group was 3-60 cm; the number of samples included in the study was 15-560, while none was estimated. 8 studies reported the inclusion criteria, and 6 studies reported the exclusion criteria. Baseline comparability was reported in 50 studies. Conclusions Although the number of clinical studies on the catheter depth of retention enema is at the stable stage, the study design and methodological quality still need to be further improved. Researchers should follow the principle of randomization, control and blinding in the future researches; specify the strict inclusion and exclusion criteria; and set up a reasonable control to ensure the authenticity and reliability of the findings.