...
首页> 外文期刊>BMC Medical Research Methodology >Database selection and data gathering methods in systematic reviews of qualitative research regarding diabetes mellitus - an explorative study
【24h】

Database selection and data gathering methods in systematic reviews of qualitative research regarding diabetes mellitus - an explorative study

机译:关于糖尿病糖尿病定性研究的系统评价数据库选择与数据收集方法 - 一种探索性研究

获取原文
           

摘要

Systematic reviews (SRs) are considered one of the most reliable types of studies in evidence-based medicine. SRs rely on a comprehensive and systematic data gathering, including the search of academic literature databases. This study aimed to investigate which combination of databases would result in the highest overall recall rate of references when conducting SRs of qualitative research regarding diabetes mellitus. Furthermore, we aimed to investigate the current use of databases and other sources for data collection. Twenty-six SRs (published between 2010 and 2020) of qualitative research regarding diabetes mellitus, located through PubMed, met the inclusion criteria. References of the SRs were systematically hand searched in the six academic literature databases CINAHL, MEDLINE/PubMed, PsycINFO, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus and the academic search engine Google Scholar. Recall rates were calculated using the total number of included references retrieved by the database or database combination divided by the total number of included references, given in percentage. The SRs searched five databases on average (range two to nine). MEDLINE/PubMed was the most commonly searched database (100% of SRs). In addition to academic databases, 18 of the 26 (69%) SRs hand searched the reference lists of included articles. This technique resulted in a median (IQR) of 2.5 (one to six) more references being included per SR than by database searches alone. 27 (5.4%) references were found only in one of six databases (when Google Scholar was excluded), with CINAHL retrieving the highest number of unique references (n?=?15). The combinations of MEDLINE/PubMed and CINAHL (96.4%) and MEDLINE/PubMed, CINAHL, and Embase (98.8%) yielded the highest overall recall rates, with Google Scholar excluded. We found that the combinations of MEDLINE/PubMed and CINAHL and MEDLINE/PubMed, CINAHL, and Embase yielded the highest overall recall rates of references included in SRs of qualitative research regarding diabetes mellitus. However, other combinations of databases yielded corresponding recall rates and are expected to perform comparably. Google Scholar can be a useful supplement to traditional scientific databases to ensure an optimal and comprehensive retrieval of relevant references.
机译:系统评价(SRS)被认为是循证医学中最可靠的研究类型之一。 SRS依靠全面和系统的数据收集,包括搜索学术文献数据库。本研究旨在调查数据库的组合将导致关于糖尿病糖尿病的定性研究SR的最高总体回忆率。此外,我们旨在调查目前使用数据库和其他数据收集来源的使用。关于通过PUBMED的糖尿病患者的定性研究二十六次SRS(2010年和2020年)的定性研究符合纳入标准。 SRS的参考文献在系统地进行了系统地搜查了六个学术文献数据库Cinahl,Medline / PubMed,Psycinfo,Embase,Science Web和Scopus以及学术搜索引擎Google Scholar。使用数据库或数据库组合所检索的包含参考的总数除以百分比,使用数据库或数据库组合的总数除以召回速率。 SRS平均搜索五个数据库(范围两到九)。 Medline / PubMed是最常见的数据库(100%的SRS)。除了学术数据库之外,26个(69%)SRS的18页还搜索了包含的文章的参考列表。该技术导致2.5的中位数(IQR)(1至六个)的中位数(IQR),每个SR包括单独的数据库搜索。 27(5.4%)仅在六个数据库之一(谷歌学者被排除时)中的一个引用,Cinahl检索最高数量的唯一引用(n?=?15)。 Medline / PubMed和Cinahl(96.4%)和Medline / PubMed,Cinahl和Embase(98.8%)的组合产生了最高的总体召回率,谷歌学者被排除在外。我们发现Medline / PubMed和Cinahl和Medline / Pubmed,Cinahl和Embase的组合产生了关于糖尿病糖尿病的定性研究中的SRS中的总体召回率。然而,数据库的其他组合产生了相应的召回率,并且预计将相当执行。谷歌学者可以对传统科学数据库进行有用的补充,以确保最佳和全面检索相关参考。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

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