1 / 1

Bibliographic analysis of EPOC reviews

Bibliographic analysis of EPOC reviews. Jessie McGowan , 1,2,3,4 Margaret Sampson, 4,5 Doug Salzwedel, 1 Raymond Daniel , 5 Jeremy Grimshaw 1,2,3

elise
Télécharger la présentation

Bibliographic analysis of EPOC reviews

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Bibliographic analysis of EPOC reviews Jessie McGowan,1,2,3,4 Margaret Sampson,4,5 Doug Salzwedel,1 Raymond Daniel,5 Jeremy Grimshaw1,2,3 1 Institute of Population Health, University of Ottawa, 2Ottawa Health Research Institute, 3Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Canada, 4 Department of Information Studies, University of Wales, Aberystwyth, 5Chalmers Research Group, Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario Research Institute Background Methods Scopus is a new abstract and citation database produced by Elsevier Science. Its data sources include MEDLINE, EMBASE, open access sources, scientific web sites and grey literature. Scopus indexes Cochrane reviews, which include reviews from the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Review Group. Scopus also provides cited references. A search of Scopus was conducted to identify EPOC reviews. Scopus records were exchanged for PubMed records using Batch Citation Matcher. We did this because we preferred to use MEDLINE records which contain more information, such as MeSH headings and publication type. Results 38 active EPOC reviews were searched for citing articles in Scopus; 1 was not indexed by Scopus 321 citing references to the 37 EPOC reviews were identified ● 6 EPOC reviews (223 citing refs) accounted for 69% of all citing refs●82 cited refs “Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes” (3 versions) ● 43 cited refs “Educational outreach visits: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes” ● 38 cited refs “Interventions to improve the management of diabetes mellitus in primary care, outpatient and community settings”●35 cited refs “Continuing education meetings and workshops: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes”●25 cited refs “Telemedicine versus face to face patient care: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes” (2 versions) The majority of EPOC reviews are cited at least once. The issue of updating reviews is problematic, as can been seen in the example of “Audit and Feedback”, which is treated as three discrete reviews rather than as one. Figure 1: Summary of Scopus search results Conclusions Citation analysis for Cochrane Reviews is new. Many issues still need to be worked out on how to interpret this data. For example; “how do we deal with updated reviews?”. The information provided by this analysis is very useful for the EPOC editorial base to understand how and where EPOC reviews are being used. It would be good to use citation analysis in other groups to explore how their review are used. For more information, please contact: Jessie McGowan Institute of Population Health, University of Ottawa, 613.562.5800 x2359; jmcgowan@uottawa.ca

More Related