Apologies for crossposting
Dear Colleagues,
I have just completed a brief comparison of the Google searches by Tang and Ng (1) with similar searches on PubMed which can be seen as a Rapid Response on BMJ’s website (2). It suggests that searches on PubMed achieve a success rate of 88% compared to Tang and Ng’s 58% on Google. I also describe how easy it is to use PubMed: all 36 searches on PubMed were done in little more than one hour, about 3 minutes for each scenario.
I was astonished to see that in some contributions to medical librarians’ discussion lists it was suggested (among other criticisms) that Tang and Ng’s results are no better than ‘flipping a coin’. Surely, during a case presentation or when ‘conducting a diagnostic exercise’ more than two possible diagnoses are discussed. A success rate of 58% on Google is impressive and better than just flipping a coin. The point is that PubMed can do even better (and faster)!
With best wishes,
Reinhard Wentz
(1) http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/bmj.39003.640567.AEv1
(2) http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/bmj.39003.640567.AEv1#149565
Reinhard Wentz, Dipl. Bibl.
Medical Informaticist
33, Gladstone Avenue
Twickenham TW2 7PS
Tel. 0044(0)20 8898 6465
[log in to unmask]
|