期刊文献+

动物实验系统评价/Meta分析检索方法的介绍 被引量:4

How to develop the search strategy of systematic reviews/meta-analysis of animal researches:an introduction
原文传递
导出
摘要 目的介绍动物实验系统评价/Meta分析检索策略的制定方法和实施步骤,为国内相关研究人员提供参考依据,促进国内高质量动物实验系统评价/Meta分析的开展和实施。方法计算机检索Pub Med、EMbase和CNKI数据库,搜集与动物实验系统评价/Meta分析检索策略、流程、方法制定和报告等相关的文献,检索时限均从建库至2017年10月。对纳入研究进行描述性分析。结果最终纳入5个研究。动物实验系统评价/Meta分析检索方法的实施过程可归纳为5个步骤:(1)确定/凝练研究问题;(2)选择恰当数据库和其他检索资源;(3)将研究问题转化为检索策略;(4)综合检索结果,去除重复引文;(5)筛选可能符合要求的研究。此外,需要注意从检索方法和检索结果两个方面充分报告其检索策略。结论动物实验系统评价/Meta分析检索方法实施过程分为5个步骤,提供了较为清晰的检索思路,能够帮助动物实验系统评价/Meta分析的研究人员设计、制定、实施较为广泛和全面的检索策略。 Objectives To introduce the formulating methods and implementing steps of search strategy of systematic reviews(SRs)/meta-analysis(MAs) of animal experiments, so as to provide a reference for domestic related researchers, and promote the development and implementation of high quality SRs/MAs of animal experiments in China. Methods Pub Med, EMbase and CNKI databases were searched online to retrieve studies on the search strategy of SRs/MAs of animal experiments from inception to October 2017. A descriptive analysis was then conducted using the evidence-based medicine theory and method. Results A total of 5 studies were included. The 5 basic steps on how to design and carry out comprehensive search strategies to identify potentially relevant animal experiments on a specific research question were as follow: 1) Formulate research question; 2) Identify appropriate databases and sources of studies;3) Transform research question into search strategy; 4) Collect search results and remove duplicates; 5) Identify potentially relevant papers. The report of search strategy needs to state its search method and search results clearly.Conclusion These 5 steps can provide an effective method, which will assist researchers in performing a comprehensive literature search.
作者 唐晓宇 李涵 孙帝力 牛佳兰 朱敏 李婧 边天月 邝心颖 耿劲松 赵霏 刘雅莉 刘霞 马彬 TANG Xiaoyu1,2,3, LI Han1,2,4, SUN Dili1,2,3, NIU Jialan1,2,3, ZHU Min1,2,4, LI Jing1,2,4, BIAN Tianyue1,2,4, KUANG Xinying5, GENG Jinsong6, ZHAO Fei7, LIU Yali1,2, LIU Xia8, MA Bin1,2(1. Evidence-Based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, 730000, P.R.China; 2. Key Laboratory of Evidence-Based Medicine and Knowledge Translation of Gansu Province, Lanzhou, 730000, P.R.China; 3. The Second Clinical Medical College of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, 73000, P.R.China; 4. The First Clinical Medical College of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, 73000, P.R.China; 5. The Chinese University of Hong Kong Jockey Club School of Public Health, Hongkong, 999077, P.R.China ;6. Department of Medical Informatics, Medical School of Nantong University, Nantong, 226001, P.R.China ;7. School of Medicine, Northwest Minzu University, Lanzhou, 730030, P.R.China ;8. Key Laboratory of Preclinical Study for New Drugs of Gansu Province, Department of Pharmacology, School of Basic Medical Science Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, 730000, P.R.Chin)
出处 《中国循证医学杂志》 CSCD 北大核心 2018年第5期515-520,共6页 Chinese Journal of Evidence-based Medicine
基金 兰州大学中央高校基本科研项目(编号:lzujbky-2016-67 lzujbky-2014-214) 国家自然科学基金(编号:81303147)
关键词 动物实验 系统评价 META分析 检索策略 简介 Animal experiment Systematic review Meta-analysis Search strategy Introduction
  • 相关文献

参考文献3

二级参考文献22

  • 1陈春英.Pubmed数据库计算机检索医学信息[J].医学信息(西安上半月),2005,18(2):115-117. 被引量:4
  • 2Sackett DL, Straus SE, Richardson WS, et al. Evidence based medicine: how to practice and teach EBM. 2ha ed. London: Churchill Livingstone, 2000: 1-50.
  • 3Margaret S, Jessie M, Elise C, et al. An evidence-based practice guideline for the peer review of electronic search strategies, l Clin Epidemiol, 2009, 62(9): 944-952.
  • 4Moher D, Cook DI, Eastwood S, et al. Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses. Lancet, 1999, 354(9193): 1896-1900.
  • 5Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement. Ann Intern Med, 2009, 151(4): 264-269.
  • 6Booth A. Brimful of STARLITE: towards standards for reporting literature searches. ! Med Libr Assoc, 2006, 94(4): 421.
  • 7Peters ]I, Sutton A], ]ones DR, et al. A systematic review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of animal experiments with guidelines for reporting. ] Environ Sci Health B, 2006, 41(7): 1245- 1258.
  • 8Higgins ]PT, Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews Interventions. Version 5.1.0. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 2011.
  • 9Jada AR, Moher D, Klassen TP. Guids for reading and interpreting systematic reviews: II. How did the authors find the studies and assess their quality? Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med, 1998, 152(8): 812- 817.
  • 10Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Plos Med, 2009, 6(7): e1000097.

共引文献150

同被引文献12

引证文献4

二级引证文献6

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部