مانعيت و جامعيت منابع اطلاعاتي پزشكي مبتني بر شواهد در بازيابي اطلاعات حوزه ديابت

The Relative generality and precision of Evidence Based Medical Infor-mation Resources in the Recovery of Diabetes Information

ﺟﺎﻣﻌﯿﺖ و ﻣﺎﻧﻌﯿﺖ دو ﻣﻌﯿﺎر ﻣﻬﻢ ﺑﺮاي ﺳﻨﺠﺶ ﮐﺎراﯾﯽ و ﻋﻤﻠﮑﺮد ﻧﻈﺎمﻫﺎي ﺑﺎزﯾﺎﺑﯽ اﻃﻼﻋـﺎت اﺳـﺖ. ﻫـﺪف از اﯾـﻦ ﭘـﮋوﻫﺶ ﻣﻘﺎﯾﺴﻪ ﺟﺎﻣﻌﯿﺖ و ﻣﺎﻧﻌﯿﺖ ﭘﺎﯾﮕﺎهﻫﺎي ﻣﺒﺘﻨﯽ ﺑﺮ ﺷﻮاﻫﺪ در ﮐﺘﺎﺑﺨﺎﻧﻪ دﯾﺠﯿﺘﺎل داﻧﺸﮕﺎه ﻋﻠﻮم ﭘﺰﺷﮑﯽ ﻫﻤﺪان در ﺑﺎزﯾﺎﺑﯽ اﻃﻼﻋـﺎت ﺣـﻮزه دﯾﺎﺑـﺖ ﺑﻮده اﺳﺖ. روش ﭘﮋوﻫﺶ: ﻃﺮاﺣﯽ اﯾﻦ ﭘﮋوﻫﺶ، ﺗﺤﻠﯿﻠﯽ- ﻣﻘﻄﻌﯽ، ﻧﻮع آن ﮐﺎرﺑﺮدي اﺳﺖ. ﺗﻬﯿﻪ ﻓﻬﺮﺳﺘﯽ از ﺳﺆاﻻت ﺑﺎﻟﯿﻨﯽ در اﯾﻦ ﭘﮋوﻫﺶ ﺑـﺎ ﻣﺮاﺟﻌـﻪ ﺑﻪ ﻣﺮﮐﺰ دﯾﺎﺑﺖ ﺷﻬﺮﺳﺘﺎن ﺳﻤﯿﺮم ﺑﻪ ﻣﺪت ﭘﻨﺞ ﻣﺎه اﻧﺠﺎم ﮔﺮﻓﺖ، ﮐﻠﯿﺪواژهﻫﺎ در ﻣﻨﺎﺑﻊ اﻃﻼﻋﺎﺗﯽ آپ ﺗﻮ دﯾﺖ، ﮐﻠﯿﻨﯿﮑﺎل ﮐـﯽ،ام ﺑـﯿﺲ ، ﮐـﺎﮐﺮﯾﻦ ﻻﯾﺒﺮي، اووﯾﺪ و ﭘﺎﺑﻤﺪ ﺟﺴﺘﺠﻮ ﺷﺪﻧﺪ. دادهﻫﺎ ﺑﺎ اﺳﺘﻔﺎده از روش آﻣﺎر ﺗﻮﺻﯿﻔﯽ و اﺳﺘﻨﺒﺎﻃﯽ در ﻗﺎﻟﺐ ﺟﺪاول و ﻧﻤﻮدارﻫﺎ و آزﻣﻮن ﮐـﺎي اﺳـﮑﻮﺋﺮو ﺗﯽ ﺗﺴﺖ و ﻓﺮﻣﻮلﻫﺎي ﺟﺎﻣﻌﯿﺖ و ﻣﺎﻧﻌﯿﺖ ﺗﺠﺰﯾﻪ و ﺗﺤﻠﯿﻞ ﮔﺮدﯾﺪ. ﯾﺎﻓﺘﻪﻫﺎ: ﯾﺎﻓﺘﻪﻫﺎ ﻧﺸﺎن داد ﮐﻪ ﭘﺎﯾﮕﺎه اووﯾﺪ )80%(و ﮐﻠﯿﻨﯿﮑﺎلﮐﯽ )65%( ﻣﺪارك ﻣﺮﺗﺒﻂ را ﺑﺎزﯾﺎﺑﯽ ﮐﺮدهاﻧﺪ. ﺑﺮ اﺳﺎس ﻣـﺪارك ﮐـﺎﻣﻼً ﻣـﺮﺗﺒﻂ ، ﭘﺎﯾﮕﺎه اﻃﻼﻋﺎﺗﯽ اووﯾﺪ داراي ﺑﯿﺸﺘﺮﯾﻦ ﺟﺎﻣﻌﯿﺖ )27/5%( و ﭘﺎﯾﮕﺎه اﻃﻼﻋﺎﺗﯽ ﭘﺎﺑﻤﺪ داراي ﮐﻤﺘﺮﯾﻦ ﺟﺎﻣﻌﯿﺖ )0/11%( ﻫﺴﺘﻨﺪ. ﺑﺮ اﺳـﺎس ﻣـﺪارك ﻣﺮﺗﺒﻂ و ﻧﺴﺒﺘﺎً ﻣﺮﺗﺒﻂ، ﭘﺎﯾﮕﺎهﻫﺎياﻃﻼﻋﺎﺗﯽ ﮐﻠﯿﻨﯿﮑﺎل ﮐﯽ، ام ﺑﯿﺲ، اووﯾﺪ، آپﺗﻮدﯾﺖ داراي ﺑﯿﺸﺘﺮﯾﻦ ﺟﺎﻣﻌﯿﺖ و ﭘﺎﯾﮕﺎهﻫﺎياﻃﻼﻋﺎﺗﯽ ﮐـﺎﮐﺮﯾﻦ و ﭘﺎﺑﻤﺪ داراي ﮐﻤﺘﺮﯾﻦ ﺟﺎﻣﻌﯿﺖ ﻫﺴﺘﻨﺪ. ﺑﺮ اﺳﺎس ﻣﺪارك ﮐﺎﻣﻼً ﻣﺮﺗﺒﻂ، ﭘﺎﯾﮕﺎه اﻃﻼﻋﺎﺗﯽ اووﯾﺪ داراي ﺑﯿﺸﺘﺮﯾﻦ ﻣﺎﻧﻌﯿﺖ و ﭘﺎﯾﮕﺎه اﻃﻼﻋـﺎﺗﯽ ﭘﺎﺑﻤـﺪ داراي ﮐﻤﺘﺮﯾﻦ ﻣﺎﻧﻌﯿﺖ اﺳﺖ. در ﺑﯿﻦ ﭘﺎﯾﮕﺎهﻫﺎي ﻣﻮرد ﺑﺮرﺳﯽ آپﺗﻮدﯾﺖ ﻣﺪارك روزآﻣﺪﺗﺮي را ﺑﺎزﯾﺎﺑﯽ ﮐﺮده اﺳﺖ. ﻧﺘﯿﺠﻪﮔﯿﺮي :در ﺑﯿﻦ ﭘﺎﯾﮕﺎهﻫﺎي ﺑﺮرﺳﯽ ﺷﺪه اووﯾﺪ داراي ﺟﺎﻣﻌﯿﺖ و ﻣﺎﻧﻌﯿﺖ ﺑﯿﺸﺘﺮي اﺳﺖ. اﻣﺎ ﺑﻪﻃﻮر ﮐﻠﯽ ﺗﻔﺎوت ﻣﻌﻨﺎ داري ﺑﯿﻦ ﺟﺎﻣﻌﯿـﺖ و ﻣﺎﻧﻌﯿﺖ اﯾﻦ ﭘﺎﯾﮕﺎهﻫﺎ وﺟﻮد ﻧﺪاﺷﺘﻪ اﺳﺖ. در ﺑﯿﻦ ﭘﺎﯾﮕﺎهﻫﺎي ﻣﻮرد ﺑﺮرﺳﯽ آپﺗﻮدﯾﺖ ﻣﺪارك روزآﻣﺪﺗﺮي را ﺑﺎزﯾﺎﺑﯽ ﮐﺮده اﺳﺖ. دو ﭘﺎﯾﮕﺎه اووﯾـﺪ و ﮐﻠﯿﻨﯿﮑﺎلﮐﯽ ﻧﺴﺒﺖ ﺑﻪ ﭘﺎﯾﮕﺎهﻫﺎي دﯾﮕﺮ ﻣﺪارك ﻣﺮﺗﺒﻂ ﺗﺮي را ﺑﺎزﯾﺎﺑﯽ ﮐﺮدهاﻧﺪ.

Relative generality and precision are two important criteria for measuring the efficiency and performance of information retrieval systems. The aim of this study was to compare the integrity and location of evidence-based bases in the digital library of Hamedan University of Medical Sciences in data retrieval of diabetes. Methods The design of this research is cross-sectional, survey, descriptive and is an applied type. Preparing a list on clinical questions here was done as referring to the Diabetes Center in Semirom for 5 months. The following keywords were searched on databases: Up To Date, Clinical Key, Embase, Cochrane, Ovid, and PubMed Tool. The data were analyzed using the descriptive and inferential statistics in terms of tables, diagrams, chi-square test. Results The findings showed that both Ovid and Clinical Key databases recovered more relevant documents in contrast to other databases Based on the most relevant documents. According to the relevant and relatively relevant documents, Clinical Key, Embase, Ovid and Up To Date databases had the highest recall in contrast to the PubMed and Cochrane databases which possessed the lowest recall. According to the most relevant documents, the Ovid Database has the highest precision while the PubMed Database had the lowest precision. Among the databases, up to date had retrieved the relevant documents. Conclusion Ovid possesses more recall and precision among the databases analyzed, but evidence-based resources are generally well-suited to clinical questions in the field of diabetes