从证据和差距图的搜索汇总表中获得的见解:同伴支持干预的案例研究。

IF 2.9 4区 医学 Q1 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE
Alison C Bethel, Naomi Shaw, Rebecca Abbot, Morwenna Rogers, Anna Price, Rob Anderson, Sian de Bell, Jo Thompson Coon
{"title":"从证据和差距图的搜索汇总表中获得的见解:同伴支持干预的案例研究。","authors":"Alison C Bethel, Naomi Shaw, Rebecca Abbot, Morwenna Rogers, Anna Price, Rob Anderson, Sian de Bell, Jo Thompson Coon","doi":"10.5195/jmla.2025.1831","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Evidence and Gap Maps (EGMs) are a visual representation of the available evidence relevant to a specific research question or topic area. They are produced using similar methods to systematic reviews, however, there is little guidance on which databases to search and how many. Information Specialists need to make decisions on which resources to search, often for a range of study designs within a broad topic area to ensure comprehensiveness.</p><p><strong>Case presentation: </strong>This case study presents two search summary tables (SSTs) from an evidence and gap map on peer support interventions. The first search summary table presents the findings of the search for systematic reviews and the second for randomised controlled trials. Different databases and different searches were undertaken for the two different study types.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The two SSTs indicated that MEDLINE and PsycINFO were key databases required for the identification of both systematic reviews and randomised controlled trials of peer support interventions, with the addition of CINAHL for systematic reviews, and CENTRAL for randomised controlled trials. For both study types, forward citation searching found additional included studies although it was more lucrative for identifying additional randomised controlled trials. Search summary tables are a simple way to share the effectiveness of the search methods chosen for a specific evidence synthesis project. The more SSTs we have, the more data we will have to inform evidence-based decisions on our search methods.</p>","PeriodicalId":47690,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Medical Library Association","volume":"113 2","pages":"177-183"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12058345/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Insights from search summary tables for evidence and gap maps: a case study on peer support interventions.\",\"authors\":\"Alison C Bethel, Naomi Shaw, Rebecca Abbot, Morwenna Rogers, Anna Price, Rob Anderson, Sian de Bell, Jo Thompson Coon\",\"doi\":\"10.5195/jmla.2025.1831\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Evidence and Gap Maps (EGMs) are a visual representation of the available evidence relevant to a specific research question or topic area. They are produced using similar methods to systematic reviews, however, there is little guidance on which databases to search and how many. Information Specialists need to make decisions on which resources to search, often for a range of study designs within a broad topic area to ensure comprehensiveness.</p><p><strong>Case presentation: </strong>This case study presents two search summary tables (SSTs) from an evidence and gap map on peer support interventions. The first search summary table presents the findings of the search for systematic reviews and the second for randomised controlled trials. Different databases and different searches were undertaken for the two different study types.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The two SSTs indicated that MEDLINE and PsycINFO were key databases required for the identification of both systematic reviews and randomised controlled trials of peer support interventions, with the addition of CINAHL for systematic reviews, and CENTRAL for randomised controlled trials. For both study types, forward citation searching found additional included studies although it was more lucrative for identifying additional randomised controlled trials. Search summary tables are a simple way to share the effectiveness of the search methods chosen for a specific evidence synthesis project. The more SSTs we have, the more data we will have to inform evidence-based decisions on our search methods.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47690,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of the Medical Library Association\",\"volume\":\"113 2\",\"pages\":\"177-183\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12058345/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of the Medical Library Association\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2025.1831\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the Medical Library Association","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2025.1831","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:证据和差距图(EGMs)是与特定研究问题或主题领域相关的现有证据的可视化表示。它们是用与系统评价类似的方法产生的,然而,很少有关于搜索哪些数据库以及搜索多少数据库的指导。信息专家需要决定搜索哪些资源,通常是在广泛的主题领域中搜索一系列研究设计,以确保全面性。案例介绍:本案例研究从同伴支持干预的证据和差距图中提出了两个搜索汇总表(SSTs)。第一个搜索汇总表显示了系统评价的搜索结果,第二个是随机对照试验的搜索结果。对两种不同的研究类型进行了不同的数据库和不同的搜索。结论:两个SSTs表明MEDLINE和PsycINFO是识别同伴支持干预的系统评价和随机对照试验所需的关键数据库,此外还有CINAHL用于系统评价,CENTRAL用于随机对照试验。对于这两种研究类型,前向引文检索发现了额外的纳入研究,尽管识别额外的随机对照试验更有利可图。检索汇总表是一种简单的方法,可以共享为特定证据综合项目选择的检索方法的有效性。我们拥有的sst越多,我们就有越多的数据来为我们的搜索方法提供基于证据的决策。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Insights from search summary tables for evidence and gap maps: a case study on peer support interventions.

Background: Evidence and Gap Maps (EGMs) are a visual representation of the available evidence relevant to a specific research question or topic area. They are produced using similar methods to systematic reviews, however, there is little guidance on which databases to search and how many. Information Specialists need to make decisions on which resources to search, often for a range of study designs within a broad topic area to ensure comprehensiveness.

Case presentation: This case study presents two search summary tables (SSTs) from an evidence and gap map on peer support interventions. The first search summary table presents the findings of the search for systematic reviews and the second for randomised controlled trials. Different databases and different searches were undertaken for the two different study types.

Conclusion: The two SSTs indicated that MEDLINE and PsycINFO were key databases required for the identification of both systematic reviews and randomised controlled trials of peer support interventions, with the addition of CINAHL for systematic reviews, and CENTRAL for randomised controlled trials. For both study types, forward citation searching found additional included studies although it was more lucrative for identifying additional randomised controlled trials. Search summary tables are a simple way to share the effectiveness of the search methods chosen for a specific evidence synthesis project. The more SSTs we have, the more data we will have to inform evidence-based decisions on our search methods.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of the Medical Library Association
Journal of the Medical Library Association INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE-
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
10.00%
发文量
39
审稿时长
26 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of the Medical Library Association (JMLA) is an international, peer-reviewed journal published quarterly that aims to advance the practice and research knowledgebase of health sciences librarianship. The most current impact factor for the JMLA (from the 2007 edition of Journal Citation Reports) is 1.392.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信