文献检索
未发现用户侧风险
文献检索
系统性文献综述方法,包括检索策略、筛选和综合。适用于开展文献综述或撰写背景章节时。
文件预览
1 个文件
SKILL.md
2.8 KB · 可预览
--- name: literature-search description: Systematic literature review methodology including search strategy, screening, and synthesis. Use when conducting literature reviews or writing background sections. metadata: category: experiment trigger-keywords: "literature,review,systematic,PRISMA,search,database,PubMed,arXiv,citation" applicable-stages: "3,4,5,6" priority: "2" version: "1.0" author: researchclaw references: "adapted from K-Dense-AI/claude-scientific-skills" --- ## Literature Search Best Practice ### Search Strategy Design 1. Define research question using PICO framework (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome) 2. Identify 2-4 core concepts from the research question 3. List synonyms, abbreviations, and related terms for each concept 4. Combine terms with Boolean operators: AND (between concepts), OR (within synonyms) 5. Select at least 3 complementary databases relevant to the domain: - Biomedical: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science - Computer science: arXiv, Semantic Scholar, DBLP, ACL Anthology - Interdisciplinary: Google Scholar, OpenAlex 6. Document exact search strings for reproducibility ### Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria 1. Define date range (e.g., last 5-10 years for rapidly evolving fields) 2. Specify language restrictions (typically English) 3. Specify publication types (peer-reviewed, preprints, conference papers) 4. Define study design requirements (RCTs, observational, computational) 5. Set domain-specific filters (species, methodology, sample size) 6. Document all criteria BEFORE screening begins ### PRISMA Methodology 1. Record total hits from each database before deduplication 2. Remove duplicates and record count 3. Screen titles and abstracts against inclusion criteria (record excluded count) 4. Full-text review of remaining papers (record excluded with reasons) 5. Report final included studies with PRISMA flow diagram 6. For scoping reviews, use PRISMA-ScR extension ### Screening and Quality Assessment 1. Use two-pass screening: title/abstract first, then full text 2. Apply quality assessment tools appropriate to study type: - RCTs: Cochrane Risk of Bias tool - Observational: Newcastle-Ottawa Scale - ML papers: check reproducibility, dataset validity, statistical rigor 3. Extract data systematically using a predefined extraction form ### Synthesis Approaches 1. **Narrative synthesis**: Organize findings thematically, identify patterns and contradictions 2. **Meta-analysis**: Pool quantitative results when studies are sufficiently homogeneous 3. **Gap analysis**: Explicitly identify what is NOT covered in the literature 4. Summarize key findings per theme with supporting citation counts 5. Highlight conflicting results and possible explanations 6. End with clear statement of research gaps that motivate your study
SKILL.md
元数据
| name | 文献检索 |
|---|---|
| description | 系统性文献综述方法,包括检索策略、筛选和综合。适用于开展文献综述或撰写背景章节时。 |
| metadata | { "category": "experiment", "trigger-keywords": "literature,review,systematic,PRISMA,search,database,PubMed,arXiv,citation", "applicable-stages": "3,4,5,6", "priority": "2", "version": "1.0", "author": "researchclaw", "references": "adapted from K-Dense-AI/claude-scientific-skills" } |
文献检索最佳实践
检索策略设计
- 使用PICO框架(人群、干预、对照、结局)定义研究问题
- 从研究问题中确定2-4个核心概念
- 为每个概念列出同义词、缩写和相关术语
- 使用布尔运算符组合术语:AND(概念间),OR(同义词内)
- 选择至少3个领域相关的互补数据库:
- 生物医学:PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science
- 计算机科学:arXiv, Semantic Scholar, DBLP, ACL Anthology
- 跨学科:Google Scholar, OpenAlex
- 记录确切的检索字符串以确保可重复性
纳入和排除标准
- 定义日期范围(例如,对于快速发展的领域,过去5-10年)
- 指定语言限制(通常为英语)
- 指定出版物类型(同行评审、预印本、会议论文)
- 定义研究设计要求(RCT、观察性、计算性)
- 设置领域特定过滤器(物种、方法学、样本量)
- 在筛选开始前记录所有标准
PRISMA方法
- 在去重前记录每个数据库的检索结果总数
- 去除重复并记录数量
- 根据纳入标准筛选标题和摘要(记录排除数量)
- 对剩余论文进行全文评审(记录排除及原因)
- 使用PRISMA流程图报告最终纳入的研究
- 对于范围综述,使用PRISMA-ScR扩展
筛选与质量评估
- 采用两步筛选:先标题/摘要,后全文
- 应用适合研究类型的质量评估工具:
- 随机对照试验:Cochrane偏倚风险工具
- 观察性研究:Newcastle-Ottawa量表
- 机器学习论文:检查可重复性、数据集有效性、统计严谨性
- 使用预定义的数据提取表系统提取数据
综合方法
- 叙述性综合:按主题组织发现,识别模式和矛盾
- 荟萃分析:当研究具有足够同质性时,合并定量结果
- 差距分析:明确指出文献未涵盖的内容
- 按主题总结关键发现,并附上支持性引文数量
- 强调冲突结果及可能的解释
- 以明确的研究差距陈述结尾,为你的研究提供动机