【摘要】 目的比较CBM和MEDLINE数据库中关于地震后人群健康问题研究特征的异同,以期为地震后科研管理、专业教学培训、科研人员选题及项目资金支持等提供参考和帮助。方法计算机检索CBM和MEDLINE数据库,检索起止时间从1978年1月至2009年12月,收集地震后人群健康问题相关研究的文献,并按研究对象特征、健康问题、研究实施时间及研究设计类型等特征对文献进行分类和比较。结果分别纳入CBM和MEDLINE数据库文献701和387篇。综合分析结果显示:MEDLINE数据库文献的研究对象为灾民而且有明确年龄特征的文献数量多于CBM(P<0.05);CBM数据库文献的研究高峰在震后3个月内(645篇,92%),MEDLINE数据库的研究高峰持续到地震后3年内(191篇,87.2%);CBM和MEDLINE数据库的研究都主要关注躯体创伤和精神心理问题(2种健康问题总计:CBM:n=727,86.1%;MEDLINE:n=358,83.4%),CBM数据库中研究设计类型集中于回顾性描述研究(n=439,62.2%)、现况研究(n=146,20.8%)与病例报告(n=86,12.3%),而MEDLINE数据库则集中于现况研究(n=177,45.7%)和回顾性描述研究(n=146,37.7%)。结论与MEDLINE相比,CBM数据库收录的研究对有明确年龄特征人群的震后健康问题的关注、对地震受灾人群远期健康问题的关注、以及证据强度、研究设计类型等均相对薄弱。其原因可能是国内研究者对地震后人群健康问题的关注不足、研究准备不充分或对研究方法的认识不足。更多还原

【Abstract】 Objective To discover the similarities and differences between CBM and MEDLINE databases in the field of post-earthquake health issue research characteristics in order to provide references and aids to the scientific research administration,professional education and training,research subjects selection and project finance support.Methods CBM and MEDLINE databases(from January 1987 to December 2009) were systematically searched to obtain literature about post-earthquake health issues.Those studies were classified and compared by the characteristics of research objects,health issues,research periods,and types of study design.Results A total of 701 literature from CBM and 387 from MEDLINE were included.MEDLINE database provided more studies focusing on victims of natural calamities with specific age description than CBM(P<0.05).Research peak of CBM database centralized in the period of three months after earthquake(n=645,92%),while MEDLINE was three years after the earthquake(n=191,87.2%).Studies from both databases similarly focused on physical trauma and psychiatric/psychological issues(two types of health issues in total: CBM: n=727,86.1%;MEDLINE: n=358,83.4%).Investigations from CBM were primarily designed for retrospective and descriptive research(n=439,62.6%),cross-sectional investigations(n=146,20.8%) and case report(n=86,12.3%) while MEDLINE focalized on cross-sectional investigations(n=177,45.7%) and retrospective and descriptive research(n=146,37.7%).Conclusion Compared to MEDLINE,studies from CBM database are relatively weak in the post-earthquake health issues of population with specific age characters,long-term health issues,levels of evidence and types of research design.The possible reasons are insufficient attention to the post-earthquake health issues,inadequate preparation for the research or limited knowledge about research methods.更多还原