Dear Elaine,
I agree with you that Google is not the most useful EBP resource, but most
clinical questions go unanswered due to time constraints, access barriers
or cost issues. I would rather see my clinicians find evidence (some?) by
ensuring that the best evidence is located *where* they like to search
(not necessarily Google, it could be PubMed). But we also know, due to
studies by McKibbon et al that most clinicians find PubMed extremely
difficult to use. All the trends point to more physicians going to
Google or Google scholar.
Henderson's article in CMAJ alludes to an important point: that context
dictates what tool is most useful. See my response:
http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/eletters/172/12/1549
I defer to your assessment in HTA, but even there - how would you locate
the "grey literature" unless you used Google and other search tools?
Thanks for this discussion...
best regards,
Dean Giustini
UBC Biomedical Librarian
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Evidence based health (EBH) [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Alligood, Elaine C
> Sent: Friday, July 15, 2005 9:30 AM
> And, I submit, we are even more critical to the HTA & EBM worlds as we do
> rigorous research (and we publish it) on what works, what doesn't, what's
> really in a resource, and what's not. Google Scholar being a fine example
> of what is NOT a useful resource
> http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/172/12/1549?etoc
>
> And trust me on this...Summerskill's article is going to generate a storm of
> responses in this vein. He is way off the mark and way out of touch with
> the world of the HTA information specialists!
>
> Elaine Alligood, MLS
> Chair, HTAi Information Resources Group 2004,2005
> [Medical Librarian for over 30 years]
> VA Technology Assessment Program
|