首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>The Aesculapian >How to identify randomized controlled trials in MEDLINE: ten years on
【2h】

How to identify randomized controlled trials in MEDLINE: ten years on

机译:如何在MEDLINE中识别随机对照试验:十年

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

>Objective: The researchers sought to assess whether the widely used 1994 Cochrane Highly Sensitive Search Strategy (HSSS) for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in MEDLINE could be improved in terms of sensitivity, precision, or parsimony.>Methods: A gold standard of 1,347 RCT records and a comparison group of 2,400 non-trials were randomly selected from MEDLINE. Terms occurring in at least 1% of RCT records were identified. Fifty percent of the RCT and comparison group records were randomly selected, and the ability of the terms to discriminate RCTs from non-trial records was determined using logistic regression. The best performing combinations of terms were tested on the remaining records and in MEDLINE.>Results: The best discriminating term was “Clinical Trial” (Publication Type). In years where the Cochrane assessment of MEDLINE records had taken place, the strategies identified few additional unindexed records of trials. In years where Cochrane assessment has yet to take place, “Randomized Controlled Trial” (Publication Type) proved highly sensitive and precise. Adding six more search terms identified further, unindexed trials at reasonable levels of precision and with sensitivity almost equal to the Cochrane HSSS.>Conclusions: Most reports of RCTs in MEDLINE can now be identified easily using “Randomized Controlled Trial” (Publication Type). More sensitive searches can be achieved by a brief strategy, the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination/Cochrane Highly Sensitive Search Strategy (2005 revision).
机译:>目的:研究人员试图评估是否广泛使用的1994年Cochrane高敏感度搜索策略(HSSS)用于MEDLINE中的随机对照试验(RCT),可以提高敏感性,精确度或简约性。 strong>方法:从MEDLINE中随机抽取1347条RCT记录的黄金标准和2400个非试验的比较组。确定了至少1%的RCT记录中出现的术语。随机选择了50%的RCT和比较组记录,并使用逻辑回归确定了该术语区分RCT与非试验记录的能力。在其余记录和MEDLINE中测试了术语的最佳组合。>结果:最佳区分术语是“临床试验”(出版类型)。在进行MEDLINE记录的Cochrane评估的年份中,这些策略几乎没有发现其他未索引的试验记录。在尚未进行Cochrane评估的几年中,“随机对照试验”(出版物类型)被证明具有高度的敏感性和准确性。添加另外六个搜索词,以合理的精确度和敏感性几乎与Cochrane HSSS相等的程度进一步鉴定出未索引的试验。>结论:现在可以使用“随机对照试验”轻松识别MEDLINE中的大多数RCT报告”(出版类型)。可以通过一个简短的策略(评论和传播中心/ Cochrane高敏感搜索策略(2005年修订))来实现更敏感的搜索。

著录项

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