8/20/ · Introduction. Systematic review is characterized as explicitly formulated, reproducible, and up-to-date summary of the effects of health care interventions,.It provides the top level of evidence for clinical decision,.More than new systematic reviews every year can be retrieved in blogger.comed with the traditional narrative review, the most prominent specialty of the systematic Cited by: 70 6/27/ · These 'structured' abstracts appear in many different article types such as review articles, original research, and practice guidelines and facilitate skimming of citations for relevance and specific information such as research design within the Methods section. The presence of structured abstracts in citations are a searchable feature in blogger.com: Rita McCandless You cannot limit a PubMed ® search to peer-reviewed or refereed journals. Most journals indexed for PubMed are peer-reviewed or refereed, but peer review criteria and reviewer or referee qualifications vary. Check a journal's editorial information or ask the publisher about policy for specific journal titles
How to add academic journal articles to PubMed: An overview for publishers
For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here. Finding duplicates is an important phase of systematic review.
However, no consensus regarding the methods to find duplicates has been provided, review article pubmed. This study aims to describe a pragmatic strategy of combining auto- and hand-searching duplicates in systematic review and to evaluate the prevalence and characteristics of duplicates. Literatures regarding portal vein thrombosis PVT and Budd-Chiari syndrome BCS were searched by the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane library databases.
Duplicates included one index paper and one or more redundant papers. For type-I duplicates, reference items review article pubmed further compared between index and redundant papers. Of papers regarding PVT, and were identified as auto- and hand-searched duplicates, respectively. The prevalence of auto- and hand-searched redundant papers was They included type-I and type-II duplicates, review article pubmed.
Of papers regarding BCS, and were identified as auto- and hand-searched duplicates, respectively. Most of type-I duplicates were identified by auto-searching method Nearly all type-II duplicates were identified by hand-searching method Most of wrong items originated from EMBASE database. Given the inadequacy of a single strategy of auto-searching method, a combined review article pubmed of auto- and hand-searching methods should be employed to find duplicates in systematic review.
Citation: Qi X, Yang M, Ren W, Jia J, Wang J, Han G, et al. PLoS ONE 8 8 : e Editor: Neil R. Smalheiser, University of Illinois-Chicago, United States of America. Received: April 10, ; Accepted: July 3, ; Published: August 20, Copyright: © Qi et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Review article pubmed interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist. Systematic review is characterized as explicitly formulated, reproducible, review article pubmed, and up-to-date summary of the review article pubmed of health care interventions [1][2]. It provides the top level of evidence for clinical decision [3][4]. More than new systematic reviews every year can be retrieved in PubMed [5].
Compared with the traditional narrative review, the most prominent review article pubmed of the systematic review is that literature search is comprehensive and literature selection is unbiased. Recently, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses PRISMA statement has recommended that a four-phase flow diagram should be employed for literature search and selection in systematic review [1].
The first phase is to identify all relevant literatures review article pubmed databases and subsequently to remove the duplicates simultaneously recorded by different databases or published by different journals. The process of finding duplicates among databases is so critical that the researchers can avoid the repetitive evaluation of data from the same study and the readers can accurately understand the quantity of scientific publications in the field.
Based on our previous systematic reviews [6]review article pubmed, [7][8][9]a high prevalence of duplicates can review article pubmed frequently observed among different databases. More importantly, not all duplicates can be readily found, because wrong information is occasionally recorded.
However, no consensus regarding the methods to find duplicates and the prevalence of duplicates among different databases has been given yet. Herein, we attempted to describe our methods to find duplicates among the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane library review article pubmed in systematic review and to evaluate the prevalence and characteristics of duplicates. Literatures in two fields were retrieved to minimize the potential selection bias. The selection of the two fields was primarily attributed to our research interests in the two vascular disorders of the liver [6][7][8][9][10]review article pubmed, [11].
QX searched the PubMed, EMBASE, review article pubmed, and Cochrane library databases from the database inception to November 12, Our search strategy aimed to maximize the quantity of literatures recorded by these databases.
The search items were discussed by all review authors, review article pubmed. For the literatures regarding portal vein thrombosis, review article pubmed, the search items were: portal vein thrombosis OR portal venous thrombosis OR portal vein obstruction OR portal venous obstruction.
For the literatures regarding Budd-Chiari syndrome, the search items were: budd chiari OR hepatic vein obstruction OR hepatic venous obstruction OR hepatic vein thrombosis OR hepatic venous thrombosis. Duplicates were divided into type I duplicates among databases and II duplicate publications. Type I review article pubmed were defined as one paper was simultaneously recorded in one database twice or more times or in two or three databases see examples in Table 1.
Type II duplicates were defined as one study was published in different journals or issues. According to the type of publication, type II duplicates were classified as Abstract-Abstract, review article pubmed, Abstract-Full text, and Full text-Full text. The first two types were often permitted, but the last one type was unethical in most of cases [12] see examples in Table 2.
Duplicates consisted of one index paper and one or more redundant papers. According to the number of redundant papers, duplicates were classified as follows: double duplicates were defined if only one redundant paper was found, triple duplicates if two redundant papers were found, quadruple duplicates if three redundant papers were found, and so on.
According to the origin of index and redundant papers, duplicates were classified as PubMed-PubMed, PubMed-EMBASE, PubMed-Cochrane, EMBASE-EMBASE, EMBASE-Cochrane, Cochrane-Cochrane, and PubMed-EMBASE-Cochrane. QX imported all literatures retrieved by the three databases into an Endnote library ENDNOTE X3, review article pubmed, Thomson Reuters, USA.
All literatures were expressed in Vancouver reference type. To maximize the quantity of auto-searched duplicates, our preference was consistent with the Endnote review article pubmed setting. QX further verified the accuracy of auto-searched duplicates. Then, duplicates were identified among the literatures by the same first author. In details, if, review article pubmed. Accordingly, to minimize the quantity of missed duplicates, the literatures were also alphabetically ordered according to the titles.
Then, duplicates were identified among the literatures with the same titles. YM and JJ were responsible for the literatures regarding portal vein thrombosis, and QX review article pubmed RW for the literatures regarding Budd-Chiari syndrome.
QX and YM were also responsible for rechecking the accuracy of their tasks. Disagreement would be resolved by discussion among the four review authors. We just compared the review article pubmed of reference items between index and redundant papers of type I duplicates, but not type II duplicates.
QX and YM extracted the detailed information of type I duplicates i. Difference between index and redundant paper s would be considered acceptable to readers and reference reviewers, if the information was expressed in different styles. Difference between index and redundant paper s would be considered unacceptable to readers and reference reviewers, if the information was wrongly expressed.
QX further obtained the full-texts of the corresponding papers to identify the database which the wrong information originated from. In the cases where some full-text papers could not be obtained, we were uncertain about which database the wrong information originated from. The proportion of type I and II duplicates was compared between auto-searching and hand-searching methods. The prevalence of different and wrong items in type I duplicates was compared between auto-searching and hand-searching methods, review article pubmed.
The statistical analyses were performed in SPSS Overall, papers were identified via the three databases, including from PubMed database, from EMBASE database, and from Cochrane library database Figure 1A. Initially, papers were identified as auto-searched duplicates. Notably, 2 papers with the same author, title, and publication date were excluded from duplicates, because both of them reported different contexts in different issues.
Thus, papers were auto-searched duplicates, including index papers and redundant papers Table 3. The prevalence of auto-searched redundant papers was Of type I duplicates, 14 had the completely same items between index and redundant papers.
The remaining duplicates had at least one different item between index and redundant papers. Publication date Only 2. Page 1, review article pubmed.
EMBASE database had the highest proportion of wrong information regarding page, issue, and volume items Figure 2A. After auto-searched redundant papers were removed, papers were further identified as hand-searched duplicates, including index papers and redundant papers Table 3. The prevalence of hand-searched redundant papers was 6.
Of type I duplicates, all had at least one different item between index and redundant papers. Author EMBASE database had the highest proportion of wrong information regarding author, title, journal, and publication date items.
Cochrane library database had the highest proportion of wrong information regarding volume and page items. PubMed database had the highest proportion of wrong information regarding issue item Figure 2B. The number of duplicates identified by auto-searching methods was larger than that identified by hand-searched duplicates versus Most of type I duplicates were identified by auto-searching methods Nearly all type II duplicates were identified by hand-searching methods Overall, papers were identified via the three databases, including from PubMed database, from EMBASE database, and from Cochrane library database Figure 1B, review article pubmed.
Of type I duplicates, 18 had the completely same items between index and redundant papers. Only 0, review article pubmed. Page 0. EMBASE database had the highest proportion of wrong information regarding page, issue, and volume items Figure 2C, review article pubmed. The prevalence of hand-searched redundant papers was 9.
Cochrane library database had the highest proportion of wrong information regarding volume, issue, and page items Figure 2D. Finding duplicates among different databases is an indispensable and important phase of systematic review.
The phase is not as easy as we expected according to our previous experiences of systematic reviews [6][7][8][9], review article pubmed.
Searching PubMed Like an Expert: Using MeSH Terms
, time: 6:52The medical review article: state of the science
4/4/ · Article submission format requirements for PubMed Central and MEDLINE. Both MEDLINE and PMC also require that records from accepted journals be submitted in specific formats. Like most major academic archives and indexes, the systems require machine-readable article files in standard XML markup language Finding Review and Research Papers in PubMed. Many databases have special features that allow the searcher to restrict results to articles that match specific criteria. In other words, only articles of a certain type will be displayed in the search results. These “limiters” can be useful when searching for research or review 8/20/ · Introduction. Systematic review is characterized as explicitly formulated, reproducible, and up-to-date summary of the effects of health care interventions,.It provides the top level of evidence for clinical decision,.More than new systematic reviews every year can be retrieved in blogger.comed with the traditional narrative review, the most prominent specialty of the systematic Cited by: 70
No comments:
Post a Comment