TY -非盟的凯彻姆安德里亚·M AU -萨利赫Ahlam盟——宋,Kwonho PY - 2011 DA - 2011/02/18 TI -类型的证据即时临床信息产品:文献计量分析乔- J地中海互联网Res SP - e21六世- 13 - 1 KW -数据库,事实KW -文献计量学KW -医学信息学KW -循证医学AB -背景:现阶段(POC)产品被广泛用作临床信息的参考工具。虽然已经研究了可用性、覆盖范围、回答临床问题的能力以及对健康结果的影响，但没有对POC产品中参考文献的特征、内容的证据进行比较分析。目的:本研究的目的是比较五种POC临床信息产品的证据类型。方法:本研究对POC产品专著引用文献进行比较计量学分析。五种常用产品作为研究对象:ACP PIER、Clinical Evidence、DynaMed、FirstCONSULT和UpToDate。四个临床主题检查，以确定产品中的含量是哮喘，高血压，高血脂和一氧化碳中毒。测量了四个指标:引用分布、证据类型、产品流通和引用重叠。证据类型主要基于MEDLINE文献记录中的出版物类型以及美国国家医学图书馆指定的医学主题标题(MeSH)确定。MeSH是用于在MEDLINE/PubMed中索引文章的受控词汇表。结果:FirstCONSULT的系统综述和随机对照试验等证据水平较高的文献发表类型所占比例最高(137/ 153,89.5%)，但其总文献数量最低(153/ 2330,6.6%)。 DynaMed had the largest total number of references (1131/2330, 48.5%) and the largest proportion of current (2007-2009) references (170/1131, 15%). The distribution of references cited for each topic varied between products. For example, asthma had the most references listed in DynaMed, Clinical Evidence, and FirstCONSULT, while hypertension had the most references in UpToDate and ACP PIER. An unexpected finding was that the rate of citation overlap was less than 1% for each topic across all five products. Conclusions: Differences between POC products are revealed by examining the references cited in the monographs themselves. Citation analysis extended to include key content indicators can be used to compare the evidence levels of the literature supporting the content found in POC products. SN - 1438-8871 UR - //www.mybigtv.com/2011/1/e21/ UR - https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.1539 DO - 10.2196/jmir.1539 ID - info:doi/10.2196/jmir.1539 ER -