醫學圖書館員參與系統性文獻回顧之全球引文分析

本研究採書目計量法探討全球系統性文獻回顧（Systematic Reviews，簡稱SR）概況，分析醫學圖書館員參與SR與無館員參與SR在作者數、主要作者所屬機構國別、引用篇數及被引用次數間的差異。研究對象為收錄於MEDLINE的22種期刊，於2014至2017年出版的9,030篇SR文章。研究結果顯示，有館員參與SR的文章數呈現逐年成長的趨勢；SR作者特徵的作者數集中在三至七人；有館員參與SR的主要作者所屬機構以美國最多，顯示高度發展國家館員參與SR的比率較高。SR引文差異方面，依t檢定結果顯示，館員參與程度與文章引用篇數無顯著差異，而館員參與程度與文章被引用次數則有顯著差異。研究建議包括鼓勵臨床人員與館員合作撰寫SR、國家應制定SR相關政策及可參考他館已設立的SR相關服務。

關鍵字

醫學圖書館；醫學圖書館員；系統性文獻回顧；引文分析

並列摘要

This study adopts a bibliometric approach to explore a focus on the general state of SRs worldwide, and analyzes the differences between SR writings with and without medical librarian involvement in terms of the differences in the number of authors, the country of institutional affiliation of the main author, the number of citing, and the number of times cited. The research objects were 22 journals that are included in the MEDLINE database were obtained a total of 9,030 SR articles published between 2014 and 2017. The results of the study revealed the following: A steady increase in the number of SR articles with librarians involved over the years. In terms of the characteristics of SR authors, the number of authors largely fell between three and seven regardless. A dominant proportion of institutional affiliations of the main authors for SR articles with librarians involved were located in the United States, exhibited librarians in highly developed countries had a higher rate of participation in SR. In terms of SR article citations, according to the t-test results, there was no significant difference in the number of citing between the presence and absence of librarian involvement, but a significant difference in the number of times cited between two. Suggestions of this study are as follows: Collaboration between clinical personnel and librarians in writing SRs should be encouraged, the state should enact SR relevant policies, and draw on SR-related services initiated by other libraries.

並列關鍵字

Medical library ； Medical librarian ； Systematic reviews ； Citation analysis

參考文獻

王慧瑜、劉人瑋、葉明功（2018）。有效進行系統性文獻回顧與統合分析研究。臺灣臨床藥學雜誌，26(1)，1-10。https://doi.org/10.6168/FJCP.201801_26(1).0001

Sackett, D. L., Rosenberg, W. M. C., Gray, J. A. M., Haynes, R. B., & Richardson, W. S. (1996). Evidence based medicine: What it is and what it isn’t. British Medical Journal, 312, 71-72. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.312.7023.71

Cook, D. J., Mulrow, C. D., & Haynes, R. B. (1997). Systematic reviews: Synthesis of best evidence for clinical decisions. Annals of Internal Medicine, 126, 376-380. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-126-5-199703010-00006

Cooper, I. D., & Crum, J. A. (2013). New activities and changing roles of health sciences librarians: A systematic review, 1990-2012. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 101(4), 268-277. https://doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.101.4.008

Dudden, R. F., & Protzko, S. L. (2011). The systematic review team: Contributions of the health sciences librarian. Medical Reference Services Quarterly, 30(3), 301-315. https://doi.org/10.1080/02763869.2011.590425

國際替代計量

醫學圖書館員參與系統性文獻回顧之全球引文分析

全文下載

主題瀏覽