方法对比
并排查看您选择的方法；存在差异的行会高亮显示。
| 灰色文献检索× | 系统性检索策略× | |
|---|---|---|
| 领域 | 研究技能 | 研究技能 |
| 方法族 | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| 起源年份≠ | 1990s (formalized in systematic review guidelines) | 1990s (formalized in Cochrane methodology) |
| 提出者≠ | Information specialists and systematic review methodologists (Cochrane Collaboration, Health Technology Assessment) | Cochrane Collaboration and systematic review methodologists |
| 类型≠ | Tool | Framework |
| 开创性文献≠ | Rothstein, H. R., & Hopewell, S. (2009). Grey literature. In J. P. Higgins & S. Green (Eds.), Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions (Version 5.0.2, Chapter 13). The Cochrane Collaboration. link ↗ | Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. G. (2009). Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Medicine, 6(7), e1000097. DOI ↗ |
| 别名 | grey literature, gray literature, unpublished literature | search protocol, systematic search, comprehensive search strategy |
| 相关 | 3 | 3 |
| 摘要≠ | Grey literature comprises documents and data not published through conventional commercial channels—including theses, government reports, clinical trial registries, conference abstracts, organizational policy documents, and working papers. Unlike journal articles, grey literature is not indexed in MEDLINE or Scopus and often lacks peer review. However, it is crucial for systematic reviews because it may contain null or negative findings that are less likely to be published (publication bias). Systematic grey literature searching is now a standard component of evidence synthesis and is recommended by the Cochrane Collaboration, PRISMA, and other methodological guidelines. | A systematic search strategy is a comprehensive, transparent protocol for retrieving all relevant literature addressing a well-defined research question. Developed by the Cochrane Collaboration and formalized in guidelines like PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses), systematic search strategies are essential for conducting unbiased literature reviews, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses. Unlike ad hoc searches (searching Google Scholar or PubMed without a protocol), systematic searches document every step—which databases were searched, what search terms were used, how many results were retrieved, and what inclusion/exclusion criteria were applied—enabling other researchers to reproduce the search and verify that no relevant studies were missed. |
| ScholarGate数据集 ↗ |
|
|