思想深度 信息宽度 Books,Journals EBMR - Ovid平台使用 勃林格 李宁 销售工程师 培训经理

EBMR页面 http://access.ovid.com/custom/cochrane/group_list_zh_hants.htm

EBMR 循证医学数据库

FULL-TEXT EBMR 循证医学数据库 – 全文库 Do: Look at the list of EBMR resources Say: These are the pieces of the EBMR database which offer full-text reviews.

Reference EBMR 循证医学数据库 – 文摘库 Do: Look at the list of EBMR resources Say: These are the pieces of EBMR which offer bibliographic (reference) information or a mixture of bibliographic materials and structured abstracts (NHSEED) – so NHSEED is partly full-text. DARE is mainly structured abstracts and systematic reviews.

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) Cochrane Collaboration（Cochrane协作网）编纂的医疗保健系统性评述； 包含超过9700篇临床的分析和评述； 每月更新。 EBMR数据库中最核心内容为CDSR全文库。该库由Cochrane协作网编纂出版，包含近一万篇深度的临床分析和评述。CDSR子库中有5大类文章，Full Systematic Review是完善正式的评述，Protocol为正在计划或正在编写中的评述草稿，还没有最后完成。New Review为最近添加的已全部完成的评述，Recently Update Review是最新更新过部分内容的评述。随着技术进步，已完成评述中的内容也会实时添加或修改。Withdrawn records是被撤回的评述。 Protocol：正在计划中的评述草案，或正在编纂中，还没有完成； New Review：最近正式添加的已经全部完成的评述； Recently Updated Review：最近更新过部分内容的评述； Full Systematic Review：全部完成，完善正式的评述； Withdrawn Records： 被撤回的评述。 7

选择CDSR 如想使用CDSR数据库，请在Ovid平台资源选择列表中进行勾选，然后进入数据库。

EBMR提供多种方式的检索 EBMR数据库依托Ovid平台提供多种检索方式，主要有基本检索、高级检索、常用字段检索、字段检索和多个字段检索。具体使用方法请参看培训视频中的功能演示视频。

CDSR主题分组（Group）列表 除检索外，CDSR还提供按主题组浏览。所有的评述文章按照学科主题被分为50多个组，每个主题组都对应包含相关文章列表，文章按字母顺序排列，用户可以方便查看，并下载全文。

CDSR全文——对临床案例进行系统性分析和评述 CDSR提供PDF全文和网页版全文。网页版全文提供大纲列表，用户可以快速了解临床研究怎样进行，并通过各标题的超链接直接跳转至对应章节。

CDSR全文——图片、图表全尺寸显示 CDSR中的全文提供图片和图表的全尺寸显示，用户可以点击缩略图放大显示，并下载清晰图片或输出至幻灯片。在大纲中，还设有“影像图库”，统一列举文章中所有的图片和图表。

CDSR全文中的超链接 CDSR网页版全文包含丰富的超链接信息，例如：各段落设置“回到顶端”链接，正文中所有参考文献和图表、图片名均可点击跳转，文后参考文献提供书目和全文链接。

文献工具 网页版全文右侧为文献工具栏，提供一系列针对全文的便捷操作。

Cochrane Clinical Answer (CCA) Cochrane Collaboration（Cochrane协作网）编纂的医疗保健系统性评述； 从Cochrane systematic review中精炼抽取出的富有临床实践性的、易读的要点评述，帮助临床诊断和决策； 每周更新 EBMR数据库中最核心内容为CDSR全文库。该库由Cochrane协作网编纂出版，包含近一万篇深度的临床分析和评述。CDSR子库中有5大类文章，Full Systematic Review是完善正式的评述，Protocol为正在计划或正在编写中的评述草稿，还没有最后完成。New Review为最近添加的已全部完成的评述，Recently Update Review是最新更新过部分内容的评述。随着技术进步，已完成评述中的内容也会实时添加或修改。Withdrawn records是被撤回的评述。 15

Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) 由英国国家保健服务评价与传播中心编制； 主要为治疗手段、方法和服务的系统性、结构化评述； 超过37000条文献记录。 EBMR7个子库中有3个全文库，除前面的CDSR之外，还有DARE疗效评价数据库。该数据库由英国约克大学的国家保健服务评价与传播中心编制，主要是当前医疗手段、方法和服务的系统性评述文章，还包括一些能直接或间接影响医疗效果的因素的评价，例如交通、社会关怀、住房等。所有评述均由专业医疗学者根据编审流程，按照评价标准编写完成。全文信息提供大纲供用户便捷浏览。The DARE database is from the UK NHS and the University of York, it includes not only reviews about patient treatment, but also about other aspects of health care. Many of the databases use MeSH and this field is generally included in the .mp. Fields. There are no options to explode or focus however, and the easiest way to use MeSH for access to EBMR is to search MEDLINE, Limit to EBMR (or subset) and link. DARE (Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects) is focused primarily on systematic reviews that evaluate the effects of health care interventions and the delivery and organisation of health services. The database also includes reviews of the wider determinants of health such as housing, transport, and social care where these impact directly on health, or have the potential to impact on health. Every week we undertake extensive searches and assess thousands of citations to identify potential systematic reviews. Full details of the search strategies are available on request (crd-info@york.ac.uk). Those citations identified as potential systematic reviews are then independently assessed for inclusion by two researchers using the following criteria: * Were inclusion/exclusion criteria reported? * Was the search adequate? * Were the included studies synthesised? * Was the quality of the included studies assessed? Are sufficient details about the individual included studies presented? To be included, reviews must meet at least four criteria (criteria 1-3 are mandatory). As soon as a review is identified as meeting the inclusion criteria, brief details are published on the database and the review is prioritised for abstract writing. Database users can request that we fast track the writing of individual critical abstracts (requests from the UK NHS get priority). Critical abstracts are written and independently checked by researchers with in-depth knowledge and experience of systematic review methods. Each abstract contains a ‘bottom line’ summary of the topic, findings and reliability of the conclusions. Brief details are then given of the review methods, the results and conclusions and, uniquely, a critical assessment of the methods used and the reliability of the conclusions drawn. The purpose of this commentary is to help users of the database to judge the overall validity and reliability of the review. Abstracts are checked and proof read by a technical editor to ensure consistency and readability prior to publishing. On final completion of an abstract, a copy is sent to the original authors for information. Authors are invited to reply with corrections to factual errors, and other relevant research. Where applicable, this information is added to the abstract. DARE also includes records of all Cochrane reviews and protocols and provides details of those reviews that appear in publications other than in the Cochrane Library but are based on or related to a Cochrane review. Details of Campbell reviews are included where the interventions evaluated impact directly on health or have the potential to impact on health. 16

ACP Journal Club 由两种期刊组成, ACP Journal Club and Evidence-Based Medicine； 主要为所收录文章的增强版摘要，以及有关文章对临床实践价值的评注。 ACP Journal Club是EBMR中的又一全文库，由ACP Journal Club和Evidence-based Medicine两种期刊组成。数据库编辑挑选当前顶级期刊中发表的学术研究或案例，以摘要方式评述其对临床医疗的价值或实践意义。 17

Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials 收录医学临床实验或案例的引文信息； 超过900,000记录； 只有符合质量标准的临床实验才能够被收录入数据库； 数据库会注明实验来源，例如MEDLINE、EMBASE、或其他。 EBMR其余4个子库均为文摘库。CCRCT对照实验注册资料库，是由Cochrane协作网编制的二次文摘库。主要收录高质量的临床对照实验，提供摘要、主题词，全文链接，以及和其他数据库的超链接。 18

Cochrane Methodology Register 应用于医疗保健中的系统性评述方法的数据库； 数据库涵盖期刊全文、图书章节、会议论文、会议文摘等； 包含超过9000条记录； CMR子库是研究应用在医疗和保健中的系统性评价方法的数据库。内容涵盖期刊、图书、会议论文、会议摘要等。 This database is closed but the Cochrane Methodology Register is a database of studies relevant to the methods of systematic reviews of healthcare and social interventions. The database includes journal articles, book chapters, conference proceedings, conference abstracts and reports of ongoing methodological research. Relevant records are identified primarily through a program of hand searching undertaken by the UK Cochrane Centre. The register aims to include all published reports of empirical methodological studies that could be relevant for inclusion in a Cochrane methodology review, along with comparative and descriptive studies relevant to the conduct of systematic reviews of healthcare interventions. The Cochrane Methodology Register contains over 9,000 bibliographic references to controlled trials in health care. The content of the Cochrane Methodology Register is being constantly expanded upon as a direct result of an extensive hand searching program and the development of a series of search strategies in MEDLINE and EMBASE to identify relevant reports. This activity is funded by the National Health Service Research and Development Methodology Programme in England 19

Health Technology Assessment Database 由英国国家保健服务评价与传播中心和瑞典INAHTA联合制作； 针对医疗卫生技术评价； 包含具有极高价值的灰色文献； 文摘信息更侧重描述； 所有新内容都经过检查、校对。 HTA医疗技术评价数据库，由英国和瑞典的研究机构联合制作，收录医疗卫生技术的评价信息， 其不仅仅包含医疗方法，还包括可能的社会、道德、经济影响等。此外，数据库还收录了一些价值极高的灰色文献信息。 The focus of the HTA database is on completed and ongoing health technology assessments from around the world. The HTA database is a valuable source for identifying grey literature as much of the information it contains is generally only available directly from individual funding agencies. Database content is supplied by the 52 members of the International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment (INAHTA) and 20 other HTA organisations around the world. Details of other on-going systematic reviews are also registered on the HTA database. All new content is checked, proof read and published on the database by the in house team at CRD. The scope for inclusion is broad, encompassing any study designated as a health technology assessment by the contributing organisation. Records for published projects contain full bibliographic details as well as contact information for the organisation publishing the report. Contributing organisations can also provide brief details of the authors’ conclusions if they wish. Links to reports, project pages and/ or organisation websites are provided wherever possible so database users can access full details directly. The HTA database also contains brief details of ongoing HTA projects. These are updated when projects complete. This enables funders and researchers to identify work already in progress and may help reduce unintended duplication of effort. Unlike the other CRD databases, DARE and NHS EED, the published records are not critically assessed. However, where a review or economic evaluation listed in the HTA database has met the inclusion criteria for DARE or NHS EED and a critical abstract has been written, links to that abstract are included in the HTA database record. Where available, links to INAHTA briefs and checklist are also provided. Produced by the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD), the Health Technology Assessment database brings together details on ongoing health technology assessments (studies of the medical, social, ethical, and economic implications of healthcare interventions). HTA is produced in collaboration with the INAHTA Secretariat, based at SBU, Sweden. The database contains records of ongoing projects being conducted by members of INAHTA as well as publications reporting completed technology assessments carried out by INAHTA members and other health technology assessment organizations. The abstracts in the database are descriptive rather than analytical and do not provide critical appraisals of the reports, as the reports have not been evaluated by reviewers from the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Many different types of research are included in the HTA database, including systematic reviews and ongoing and completed research based on trials, questionnaires and economic evaluations. In some cases there will be an overlap with systematic reviews in the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effect (DARE) database and economic evaluations in the National Health Service Economic Evaluation (NHS EED) database. 20

National Health Service (NHS) Economic Evaluation Database 由英国国家保健服务评价与传播中心和瑞典INAHTA联合制作； 主要关于医疗保健的经济效果评估，希望能够有效帮助决策者； 经济效果评估通常为对两个或多个治疗方法的花费、结果、替代手段等对比分析。 NHS EED经济效果评估库同样有英国和瑞典两国的研究机构联合制作，主要针对医疗保健方式或手段的经济效果评估，希望能够有效帮助决策者。评估文章通常为对两个或多个治疗方法的话费、结果、替代手段等方面的对比分析。 NHS EED (NHS Economic Evaluation Database) focuses primarily on the economic evaluation of health care interventions and aims to help decision makers interpret an increasingly complex and technical literature. Economic evaluations are studies in which a comparison of two or more interventions or care alternatives is undertaken and in which both the costs and outcomes of the alternatives are examined. This includes cost-benefit analyses, cost-utility analyses, and cost-effectiveness analyses. Each week extensive literature searches are undertaken to identify relevant economic evaluations. Full details of the search strategies are available on request (crd-info@york.ac.uk). The citations are assessed by experienced health economists and classified by study design. As soon as a study is identified as meeting the inclusion criteria, brief details are published on the database and the study is prioritised for abstract writing. Studies conducted in, or that are relevant to the UK health care system are considered priorities and fast tracked. This priority process ensures that evidence of most relevance to the NHS is made available in the form of a critical abstract as quickly as possible. As with DARE, database users can request that we fast track the writing of critical abstracts for individual studies (priority is given to the UK NHS). Each abstract starts with a non technical summary of the topic, conclusions and reliability of the study.  A brief description of the effectiveness information on which the economic evidence is based and details of the key components of the economic evaluation, are also included. A critical commentary summarises the overall reliability and generalisability of the study, and presents any practical implications for the NHS. Critical abstracts are written and independently checked by health economists with in-depth knowledge and experience of economic evaluation methods. They are then checked and proof read by a technical editor to ensure consistency and readability. On final completion of an abstract, a copy is sent to the original authors for information. Authors are invited to reply with corrections to factual errors, further information and other research. Where applicable this information is added to the abstract. The National Health Service (NHS) Economic Evaluation Database is funded by the Department of Health's NHS Research and Development Programme, and produced by the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD), and provides cost-benefit analyses about healthcare interventions. The economic evaluation literature is recorded in many electronic databases and paper-based resources. For NHS EED, the staff at CRD systematically identifies economic evaluations by searching a range of electronic databases, journals, and paper-based resources. The NHS Economic Evaluation Database contains over 6000 records of quality assessed economic evaluations. The database aims to assist decision-makers by systematically identifying and describing economic evaluations, appraising their quality and highlighting their relative strengths and weaknesses. 21

选择多个数据库，同时检索 在Ovid平台，用户可以选择单独一个子库，或多个子库同时进行检索。只需在Ovid平台选择资源页面进行勾选即可。

如需要更多详细内容 发送邮件： support@ovid.com 访问Ovid帮助资源中心： 英文版：http://resourcenter.ovid.com 中文版：http://demo.ovid.com/training/cn/ 在线培训网站： http://demo.ovid.com/training/cn/onlinetraining/index.html 如您需要更多详细内容，可以给我们发送电子邮件，或者访问Ovid帮助资源中心，查看其他帮助信息或教程演示。感谢您对我们的支持！

培训反馈 问题? 非常感谢! 李宁 Ovid培训经理 Ning.li@wolterskluwer.com support@ovid.com