Analysis of research status of pneumoconiosis severity assessment indicators based on literature bibliometric
扫码查看
点击上方二维码区域，可以放大扫码查看
原文链接
NETL
NSTL
万方数据
目的 基于文献计量学分析职业性尘肺病(以下简称"尘肺病")病情评估指标的研究现状.方法 以中国期刊全 文数据库、万方数据知识服务平台、维普数据库、中国生物医学文献服务系统、PubMed、Cochrane Library和Web of Science数据库为数据源,检索收集国内外尘肺病病情评估指标研究文献,进行方法学质量评价和病情评估指标分析.结果 共纳入尘肺病病情评估指标相关文献88篇,文献总体评价为好、中等、差者分别占18.18％、69.32％和12.50％.其中,每篇文献报告的样本量中位数为86例;81.82％文献报告了尘肺病期别;80.68％文献报告了尘肺病病种,以单纯的矽肺和煤工尘肺多见,涉及报告2种及以上尘肺病病种的文献仅有12篇.88篇文献共报告4大类122种病情评估指标,包括理化检测指标99种、影像学指标10种、症状体征指标6种和其他指标7种.76.14％的文献仅使用单一的病情评估指标对尘肺病的严重程度进行评判,23.86％的文献联合多种病情评估指标.仅有5.68％的文献针对不同期别的尘肺病患者选择特定的病情评估指标.结论 尘肺病病情评估相关研究文献质量较低,病情评估指标的适用性较差,且指标的联合使用较混乱.
Objective To conduct a bibliometric analysis on the research status of occupational pneumoconiosis(hereinafter referred to as"pneumoconiosis")severity assessment indicators.Methods The domestic and foreign articles on the research of pneumoconiosis severity assessment indicators were accessed from China National Knowledge Infrastructure,Wanfang Data,VIP Database,China Biomedical Literature Service System,PubMed,Cochrane Library,and Web of Science.The methodological quality evaluation and analysis of severity assessment indicators were performed with the relevant articles.Results A total of 88 relevant articles on pneumoconiosis severity assessment indicators were included.The overall evaluation of the literature with good-,moderate-,and poor-quality articles accounted for 18.18％,69.32％,and 12.50％,respectively.The median sample size reported in each article was 86 cases.The articles reporting the stage of pneumoconiosis accounted for 81.82％,and 80.68％reported the types of pneumoconiosis which was mainly simple silicosis and coal worker's pneumoconiosis.Only 12 articles reported two or more types of pneumoconiosis.A total of 122 severity assessment indicators in four categories were reported in 88 articles,including 99 physiological and biochemical indicators,10 imaging indicators,six symptoms and signs indicators,and seven other indicators.The articles used a single severity assessment indicator to assess the severity of pneumoconiosis accounted for 76.14％,while 23.86％of the articles used multiple severity assessment indicators,and only 5.68％of the articles selected specific severity assessment indicators for pneumoconiosis patients in different stages.Conclusion The quality of research on pneumoconiosis severity assessment is relatively low.The applicability of the combined use of severity assessment indicators is poor and confused.
NETL
NSTL
万方数据
