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. 第一讲: 如何报告系统综述和 Meta 分析—国际报告规范 QUOROM 和 MOOSE 解读. 中国循证儿科杂志, 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.	陈匡阳, 屈丽娜, 胡芳, 等. 动物实验系统评价/Meta 分析检索策略报告情况调查. 中国循证医学杂志, 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, 罗勇, 等. 口腔护理作用的系统评价. 中国循证医学杂志, 2004, 4(12): 837-846, 858.
9.	赵梦遐, 王惠连, 朱利敏. 我国护理期刊有关随机对照试验系统评价的论文书写质量评价. 护理学报, 2011, 18(17): 8-12.
10.	靳英辉, 马恩婷, 花巍, 等. 国内护理领域系统评价/Meta 分析的方法学与报告质量评价. 中国循证医学杂志, 2012, 12(9): 1148-1155.
11.	熊艳. 国内护理系统评价/Meta 分析的报告质量分析. 护理学杂志, 2010, 25(12): 80-82.
12.	秦春霞, 张利欢, 任丹. 我国护理领域系统评价/Meta 分析的报告质量评价: 基于 PRISMA 声明. 甘肃科技, 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, 刘琴, 翁淳光, 等. 国内公共卫生研究领域系统评价/Meta 分析的质量评价. 中国循证医学杂志, 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.	王丽伟, 牟冬梅, 王伟. Scopus 数据 S 库的期刊评价功能及其实证研究. 情报科学, 2009, 27(6): 864-868.
17.	张建, 张苏. Scopus 数据库的特点与功能. 情报探索, 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.	葛龙, 安妮, 曾巧铃, 等. 我国干预类系统评价/Meta 分析文献检索新挑战. 中华医学图书情报杂志, 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. 第一讲: 如何报告系统综述和 Meta 分析—国际报告规范 QUOROM 和 MOOSE 解读. 中国循证儿科杂志, 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. 陈匡阳, 屈丽娜, 胡芳, 等. 动物实验系统评价/Meta 分析检索策略报告情况调查. 中国循证医学杂志, 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, 罗勇, 等. 口腔护理作用的系统评价. 中国循证医学杂志, 2004, 4(12): 837-846, 858.
9. 赵梦遐, 王惠连, 朱利敏. 我国护理期刊有关随机对照试验系统评价的论文书写质量评价. 护理学报, 2011, 18(17): 8-12.
10. 靳英辉, 马恩婷, 花巍, 等. 国内护理领域系统评价/Meta 分析的方法学与报告质量评价. 中国循证医学杂志, 2012, 12(9): 1148-1155.
11. 熊艳. 国内护理系统评价/Meta 分析的报告质量分析. 护理学杂志, 2010, 25(12): 80-82.
12. 秦春霞, 张利欢, 任丹. 我国护理领域系统评价/Meta 分析的报告质量评价: 基于 PRISMA 声明. 甘肃科技, 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, 刘琴, 翁淳光, 等. 国内公共卫生研究领域系统评价/Meta 分析的质量评价. 中国循证医学杂志, 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. 王丽伟, 牟冬梅, 王伟. Scopus 数据 S 库的期刊评价功能及其实证研究. 情报科学, 2009, 27(6): 864-868.
17. 张建, 张苏. Scopus 数据库的特点与功能. 情报探索, 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. 葛龙, 安妮, 曾巧铃, 等. 我国干预类系统评价/Meta 分析文献检索新挑战. 中华医学图书情报杂志, 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