The Search Strategy of Systematic Review/Meta-analysis of Animal Research: A Survey_Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine

Authors：

 CHENKuang-yang ^1,2,3 ^# ,  QULi-na ^1,2,4 ^# , HUFang ^1,2,4 , ZHANGYi-Heng ^1,2,3 , YANGJing-jing ^1,2,4 , BAIXi ^1,2,4 ,  MABin ^1,2

1. Evidence Based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China;
2. Key Laboratory of Evidence Based Medicine and Knowledge Translation of Gansu Province, Lanzhou 730000, China;
3. The First Clinical Medical College of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China;
4. The Second Clinical Medical College of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China;

Corresponding?author：

MABin, Email: mab@lzu.edu.cn

Keywords：

Animal study; systematic review; Meta-analysis; Search strategy

DOI：

10.7507/1672-2531.20160054

Video：

Export PDF Favorites Scan Get Citation

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Objective To provide a reference for developing search strategy of systematic reviews/meta-analyses (SRs/MAs) of animal researches (ARs) in future, we investigated and analyzed the search strategy of SRs/MAs of ARs at home and abroad. Methods Ovid-MEDLINE, Ovid-EMbase, Ovid-BIOSIS previews, CBM, CNKI, VIP and WanFang Data were searched from inception to January 2015, to collect SRs/MAs of ARs that related to medicine. No limitation in species. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted basic characteristics, databases and other sources searched, characteristics of reported search strategy of included studies. Result A total of 181 SRs/MAs of ARs were finally included. Less than 30% SRs/MAs searched more than three databases, 65.7% reported supplementary retrieval. 86.2% (156/181) SRs/MAs reported search terms, but only 12 reported search strategy; the search terms of 33 studies included specific name of animal, 27 studies used "animal/experimental model/", 20 studies used "limit to animal". 71.3% SRs/MAs reported specific time limitation of searching, 44.2% reported whether limited language, 23.8% of them limited language, and more of these limited to English. Conclusion At present, there are still some problems in SRs/MAs of ARs at home and abroad when choice database, search terms and search strategy, so we advise that:1) It's necessary to choice typical databases as many as possible according to search field; 2) Using specific animal's name and (or) "animal" as one of search terms, and using "limit to animal" according to characteristic of different databases; 3) The reporting of search strategy of SRs/MAs of ARs should include search sources, time limitation, language limitation, limitation of inclusion type, search terms and complete search strategy, besides, reporting knowledge of reviewers is also necessary; 4) To improve transparency and clarity of SRs/MAs of ARs, some related journals should introduce "reporting complete search strategy" in their instruction for authors.

Citation： CHENKuang-yang, QULi-na, HUFang, ZHANGYi-Heng, YANGJing-jing, BAIXi, MABin. The Search Strategy of Systematic Review/Meta-analysis of Animal Research: A Survey. Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, 2016, 16(3): 348-353. doi: 10.7507/1672-2531.20160054 Copy

1.	Sackett DL, Straus SE, Richardson WS, et al. Evidence based medicine:how to practice and teach EBM. 2_nd ed. London:Churchill Livingstone, 2000:1-50.
2.	Margaret S, Jessie M, Elise C, et al. An evidence-based practice guideline for the peer review of electronic search strategies. J Clin Epidemiol, 2009, 62(9):944-952.
3.	Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, et al. Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials:the QUOROM statement. Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses. Lancet, 1999, 354(9193):1896-1900.
4.	Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses:the PRISMA Statement. Ann Intern Med, 2009, 151(4):264-269.
5.	Booth A. Brimful of STARLITE:towards standards for reporting literature searches. J Med Libr Assoc, 2006, 94(4):421.
6.	張新鳳. 臨床治療學系統評價/meta分析文獻檢索策略的觀察研究. 中華醫學圖書情報雜志, 2013, 22(8):22-24.
7.	梁莉, 葛龍, 周為文, 等. 我國診斷性試驗系統評價/Meta分析的檢索情況調查分析. 中華醫學圖書情報雜志, 2013, 22(5):9-16.
8.	陳匡陽, 王亞楠, 趙雅琴, 等. 國內動物實驗系統評價/Meta分析研究的現狀分析. 中國循證醫學雜志, 2015, 15(4):414-418.
9.	劉鵬, 于鈞, 杜琳琳, 等. RevMan軟件用于碘酸鉀、碘化鉀對小鼠血液抗氧化能力影響的Meta分析. 中國地方病防治雜志, 2008, 23(5):328-330.
10.	Peters JI, Sutton AJ, Jones DR, et al. A systematic review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of animal experiments with guidelines for reporting. J Environ Sci Health B, 2006, 41(7):1245-1258.
11.	Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews Interventions. Version 5.1.0. Chichester:John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 2011.
12.	陳春英. Pubmed數據庫計算機檢索醫學信息. 醫學信息, 2005, 18(2):115-117.
13.	劉莉, 沈秀麗, 劉云, 等. BIOSIS Previews網絡數據庫檢索系統的檢索方法及應用. 吉林大學學報(醫學版), 2004, 30(1):155-156.
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.	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.
16.	Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses:the PRISMA statement. Plos Med, 2009, 6(7):e1000097.
17.	Stroup DF, Bedin JA, Morton SC, et al. Meta-analyses of observational studies in epidemiology:A proposal for reporting. JAMA, 2000, 283(15):2008-2012.
18.	PRISMA Endorsers List[cited 2016 Jan 26]. Available at:http//www.prisma-statement.org/endorsers.htm.
19.	Delaney A, Bagshaw SM, Ferland A, et al. A systematic evaluation of the quality of the meta-analyses in the critical care literature. Crit Care, 2005, 9(5):R575-582.
20.	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. Sackett DL, Straus SE, Richardson WS, et al. Evidence based medicine:how to practice and teach EBM. 2_nd ed. London:Churchill Livingstone, 2000:1-50.
2. Margaret S, Jessie M, Elise C, et al. An evidence-based practice guideline for the peer review of electronic search strategies. J Clin Epidemiol, 2009, 62(9):944-952.
3. Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, et al. Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials:the QUOROM statement. Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses. Lancet, 1999, 354(9193):1896-1900.
4. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses:the PRISMA Statement. Ann Intern Med, 2009, 151(4):264-269.
5. Booth A. Brimful of STARLITE:towards standards for reporting literature searches. J Med Libr Assoc, 2006, 94(4):421.
6. 張新鳳. 臨床治療學系統評價/meta分析文獻檢索策略的觀察研究. 中華醫學圖書情報雜志, 2013, 22(8):22-24.
7. 梁莉, 葛龍, 周為文, 等. 我國診斷性試驗系統評價/Meta分析的檢索情況調查分析. 中華醫學圖書情報雜志, 2013, 22(5):9-16.
8. 陳匡陽, 王亞楠, 趙雅琴, 等. 國內動物實驗系統評價/Meta分析研究的現狀分析. 中國循證醫學雜志, 2015, 15(4):414-418.
9. 劉鵬, 于鈞, 杜琳琳, 等. RevMan軟件用于碘酸鉀、碘化鉀對小鼠血液抗氧化能力影響的Meta分析. 中國地方病防治雜志, 2008, 23(5):328-330.
10. Peters JI, Sutton AJ, Jones DR, et al. A systematic review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of animal experiments with guidelines for reporting. J Environ Sci Health B, 2006, 41(7):1245-1258.
11. Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews Interventions. Version 5.1.0. Chichester:John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 2011.
12. 陳春英. Pubmed數據庫計算機檢索醫學信息. 醫學信息, 2005, 18(2):115-117.
13. 劉莉, 沈秀麗, 劉云, 等. BIOSIS Previews網絡數據庫檢索系統的檢索方法及應用. 吉林大學學報(醫學版), 2004, 30(1):155-156.
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. 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.
16. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses:the PRISMA statement. Plos Med, 2009, 6(7):e1000097.
17. Stroup DF, Bedin JA, Morton SC, et al. Meta-analyses of observational studies in epidemiology:A proposal for reporting. JAMA, 2000, 283(15):2008-2012.
18. PRISMA Endorsers List[cited 2016 Jan 26]. Available at:http//www.prisma-statement.org/endorsers.htm.
19. Delaney A, Bagshaw SM, Ferland A, et al. A systematic evaluation of the quality of the meta-analyses in the critical care literature. Crit Care, 2005, 9(5):R575-582.
20. 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 Search Strategy of Systematic Review/Meta-analysis of Animal Research: A Survey

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Previous Article

Next Article

Format

Content