The formulation and investigation about the search strategy of systematic reviews/meta-analyses of nursing researches in high impact journals_Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine

Authors：

ZHANG Juxia ^1# , ZHAO Lulu ^2,3# , FU Wenkang ^2,3,4# , ZHANG Peiyu ^2,3 , MA Yifei ^2,3 , KANG Jihe ^2,3 , LV Zhikang ^2,3 ,  MA Bin ^2,3

1. Gansu Province Hospital Nursing Department, Lanzhou, 73000, P.R.China;
2. Evidence-based Medicine Center/School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, 730000, P.R.China;
3. Key Laboratory of Evidence Based Medicine and Knowledge Translation of Gansu Province, Lanzhou, 730000, P.R.China;
4. The First Clinical Medical College of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, 73000, P.R.China;

Corresponding?author：

MA Bin, Email: kitty_mab@163.com

Keywords：

Nursing care; Systematic review; Meta-analysis; Search strategy

DOI：

10.7507/1672-2531.201701080

Video：

Export PDF Favorites Scan Get Citation

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Objective To retrospectively analyze the search strategy of systematic reviews/meta-analyses(SRs/MAs) of nursing researches, and to provide the references for developing search strategy of SRs/MAs of nurse researchers in future. Methods The SRs/MAs in nursing journals from CSCD and Web of Science were searched from inception to October 2015. Four reviewers independently screened literatures and extracted data. Then data analysis was conducted by using Excel 2007 software. Results A total of 112 nursing SRs/MAs were finally included, 44 were published in English and 68 were published in Chinese. 37.5% (42/112) SRs/MAs reported the flow charts, 13.39% (15/112) reported the knowledge of reviewers, and 8.04% (9/112) reported the comprehensive search strategies. 48.21% SRs/MAs searched less than five databases, 15% SRs/MAs searched more than ten databases. 45.54% SRs/MAs reported supplementary retrieval, 8.93% searched the gray literatures. Patients combined with intervention was the most way in searching. Conclusion There are still some limitations in search strategy of SRs/MAs for nursing studies. We advise that: (1) it’s necessary to choice typical databases as many as possible according to search field; (2) the reporting of search strategy of nursing SRs/MAs should reporte knowledge of reviewers; (3) to improve transparency and quality of SRs/MAs in nursing researches, journals should introduce reporting complete search strategy in their instruction for authors.

Citation： ZHANG Juxia, ZHAO Lulu, FU Wenkang, ZHANG Peiyu, MA Yifei, KANG Jihe, LV Zhikang, MA Bin. The formulation and investigation about the search strategy of systematic reviews/meta-analyses of nursing researches in high impact journals. Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, 2017, 17(5): 587-592. doi: 10.7507/1672-2531.201701080 Copy

1.	?Yoshii A, Plaut DA, McGraw KA, et al. Analysis of the reporting of search strategies in Cochrane systematic reviews. J Med Libr Assoc, 2009, 97(1): 21-29.
2.	Sampson M, McGowan J, Cogo E, et al. An evidence-based practice guideline for the peer review of electronic search strategies. J Clin Epidemiol, 2009, 62(9): 944-952.
3.	詹思延. 第一講: 如何報告系統綜述和 Meta 分析—國際報告規范 QUOROM 和 MOOSE 解讀. 中國循證兒科雜志, 2010, 5(1): 60-63.
4.	Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Int J Surg, 2010, 8(5): 336-341.
5.	Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, et al. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA, 2000, 283(15): 2008-2012.
6.	陳匡陽, 屈麗娜, 胡芳, 等. 動物實驗系統評價/Meta 分析檢索策略報告情況調查. 中國循證醫學雜志, 2016(3): 348-353.
7.	Li L, Tian J, Tian H, et al. Network meta-analyses could be improved by searching more sources and by involving a librarian. J Clin Epidemiol, 2014, 67(9): 1001-1007.
8.	史宗道, 余京儒, 羅勇, 等. 口腔護理作用的系統評價. 中國循證醫學雜志, 2004, 4(12): 837-846, 858.
9.	趙夢遐, 王惠連, 朱利敏. 我國護理期刊有關隨機對照試驗系統評價的論文書寫質量評價. 護理學報, 2011, 18(17): 8-12.
10.	靳英輝, 馬恩婷, 花巍, 等. 國內護理領域系統評價/Meta 分析的方法學與報告質量評價. 中國循證醫學雜志, 2012, 12(9): 1148-1155.
11.	熊艷. 國內護理系統評價/Meta 分析的報告質量分析. 護理學雜志, 2010, 25(12): 80-82.
12.	秦春霞, 張利歡, 任丹. 我國護理領域系統評價/Meta 分析的報告質量評價: 基于 PRISMA 聲明. 甘肅科技, 2013, 29(22): 147-149.
13.	Cook DJ, Sackett DL, Spitzer WO. Methodologic guidelines for systematic reviews of randomized control trials in health care from the Potsdam Consultation on Meta-Analysis. J Clin Epidemiol, 1995, 48(1): 167-171.
14.	王靖, 劉琴, 翁淳光, 等. 國內公共衛生研究領域系統評價/Meta 分析的質量評價. 中國循證醫學雜志, 2010, 10(12): 1367-1374.
15.	Higgins JP, Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions: Cochrane Book Series// Wiley-Blackwell, 2008, 5(14): 102-108.
16.	王麗偉, 牟冬梅, 王偉. Scopus 數據 S 庫的期刊評價功能及其實證研究. 情報科學, 2009, 27(6): 864-868.
17.	張建, 張蘇. Scopus 數據庫的特點與功能. 情報探索, 2007, (3): 67-69.
18.	Jada 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.
19.	葛龍, 安妮, 曾巧鈴, 等. 我國干預類系統評價/Meta 分析文獻檢索新挑戰. 中華醫學圖書情報雜志, 2013, 22(5): 2-8.

1. ?Yoshii A, Plaut DA, McGraw KA, et al. Analysis of the reporting of search strategies in Cochrane systematic reviews. J Med Libr Assoc, 2009, 97(1): 21-29.
2. Sampson M, McGowan J, Cogo E, et al. An evidence-based practice guideline for the peer review of electronic search strategies. J Clin Epidemiol, 2009, 62(9): 944-952.
3. 詹思延. 第一講: 如何報告系統綜述和 Meta 分析—國際報告規范 QUOROM 和 MOOSE 解讀. 中國循證兒科雜志, 2010, 5(1): 60-63.
4. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Int J Surg, 2010, 8(5): 336-341.
5. Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, et al. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA, 2000, 283(15): 2008-2012.
6. 陳匡陽, 屈麗娜, 胡芳, 等. 動物實驗系統評價/Meta 分析檢索策略報告情況調查. 中國循證醫學雜志, 2016(3): 348-353.
7. Li L, Tian J, Tian H, et al. Network meta-analyses could be improved by searching more sources and by involving a librarian. J Clin Epidemiol, 2014, 67(9): 1001-1007.
8. 史宗道, 余京儒, 羅勇, 等. 口腔護理作用的系統評價. 中國循證醫學雜志, 2004, 4(12): 837-846, 858.
9. 趙夢遐, 王惠連, 朱利敏. 我國護理期刊有關隨機對照試驗系統評價的論文書寫質量評價. 護理學報, 2011, 18(17): 8-12.
10. 靳英輝, 馬恩婷, 花巍, 等. 國內護理領域系統評價/Meta 分析的方法學與報告質量評價. 中國循證醫學雜志, 2012, 12(9): 1148-1155.
11. 熊艷. 國內護理系統評價/Meta 分析的報告質量分析. 護理學雜志, 2010, 25(12): 80-82.
12. 秦春霞, 張利歡, 任丹. 我國護理領域系統評價/Meta 分析的報告質量評價: 基于 PRISMA 聲明. 甘肅科技, 2013, 29(22): 147-149.
13. Cook DJ, Sackett DL, Spitzer WO. Methodologic guidelines for systematic reviews of randomized control trials in health care from the Potsdam Consultation on Meta-Analysis. J Clin Epidemiol, 1995, 48(1): 167-171.
14. 王靖, 劉琴, 翁淳光, 等. 國內公共衛生研究領域系統評價/Meta 分析的質量評價. 中國循證醫學雜志, 2010, 10(12): 1367-1374.
15. Higgins JP, Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions: Cochrane Book Series// Wiley-Blackwell, 2008, 5(14): 102-108.
16. 王麗偉, 牟冬梅, 王偉. Scopus 數據 S 庫的期刊評價功能及其實證研究. 情報科學, 2009, 27(6): 864-868.
17. 張建, 張蘇. Scopus 數據庫的特點與功能. 情報探索, 2007, (3): 67-69.
18. Jada 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.
19. 葛龍, 安妮, 曾巧鈴, 等. 我國干預類系統評價/Meta 分析文獻檢索新挑戰. 中華醫學圖書情報雜志, 2013, 22(5): 2-8.

Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine

The formulation and investigation about the search strategy of systematic reviews/meta-analyses of nursing researches in high impact journals

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Previous Article

Next Article

Format

Content