Dear All
My impression is that we are much better off than the purer scientists in relation to our databases and approach to searching. I have tried to get geneticists to do systematic reviews and they seem to be unaware that there is a problem.
Norman Vetter
Dr Norman J Vetter
Department of Primary Care & Public Health
4rd Floor, Neuadd Meirionydd
Heath Park Campus
Cardiff University, CF14 4XN
UK
Tel: +44 (0)29 20687263
Fax: +44 (0)29 20687236
Web: www.normanvetter.com
>>> Dean Giustini <[log in to unmask]> 18/02/08 5:47 PM >>>
Hi everyone,
As an information specialist and medical librarian, I am always very
interested in the information perceptions of physicians and clinical
researchers and where they believe they'll find the best evidence.
What we have, at present, is a terribly fragmented biomedical literature.
The closest we come to a true comprehensive, all-inclusive database for
biomedicine is....? None of the above, I'm afraid, although one could make
a case for most of the evidence existing in MEDLINE-PubMed/EMBASE-Scirus,
supplemented by Google scholar/Google and then, for meta-searching, TRIP,
SumSearch and I suppose one of the NLM tools like Entrez.
Please don't mention Mahalo!
Dean Giustini, UBC biomedical branch librarian
Diamond Health Care Centre and Vancouver Hospital
Vancouver BC, Canada V5Z 1M9
blog: weblogs.elearning.ubc.ca/googlescholar
On Mon, 18 Feb 2008, Arin Basu wrote:
> Hi Kamlesh,
>
> Your points about Google are well taken, but there is a difference
> between searching Google and searching for information through
> databases like Trip/cochrane/dynamed/clinical evidence. When you put a
> search term in Google, Google's spider finds documents through a
> relevance matching process that relates how many other documents
> actually link to the document of highest relevance score and then
> draws the list it builds. It is both useful and has problems that some
> search engine optimizer gurus have exploited so that related pages
> that link to the original page moves up all the time and you tend to
> get the same set of popular, well linked to pages. Google is therefore
> a great tool when you are starting out to scan the horizon, but when
> you start asking specific questions that require quality controlled
> focused response, think again.
>
> With Google, you do not necessarily get to see pages that have most
> relevant information for _your_ specific need, nor can you expect
> pages that you retrieve using Google search to be quality checked in
> terms of their content. Although the search results, if done within a
> reasonable period of time of each other, can be very reliable (you
> get to see the same pages that you retrieved in your first attempt at
> search). On the other hand, when you search Cochrane/Trip/Dynamed/,
> there is an additional layer of curation and hard coding behind the
> process including a peer review, in most cases, and relevant quality
> control.
>
> There is perhaps a need for a search engine that is as powerful as
> Google and as reliable as the human curated databases such as the ones
> we are discussing here. Recently, I checked out mahalo -- a very small
> search engine, but looked to me promising because it attempts to blend
> the best of both worlds. Who knows how far it will go, but looked good
> to me when I checked it out for the first time. Here's the link:
>
> http://www.mahalo.com
>
>
> Best,
> Arin
>
>
>
> On Feb 17, 2008 11:14 PM, Kamlesh Bhargava <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Feb 17, 2008 2:12 PM, Kamlesh Bhargava <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>> I agree with Kev. It depends.
>>>
>>> For articles which I know the titles of I would do a Google search.
>>>
>>> Also other like information about drugs I have found Google as a useful
>> resource, advantage being the speed and free access.
>>>
>>> Uptodate, tripdatabse, cochrane in that order are my preferences for
>> clinical information.
>>>
>>> Pubmed Clinical queries yeilds good information.
>>>
>>> PMC Pubmed central gives free full text articles in Pubmed.
>>>
>>> Kamlesh
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Feb 17, 2008 1:28 PM, k.hopayian <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> It depends on what you are searching for and why. So students need to
>> know the advantages and disadvantages of different search filters and
>> databases.
>>>>
>>>> For example, is your question about diagnosis? If yes, then Cochrane
>> won't help.
>>>> Are you looking for a guide to practice? In which you may want
>> guidelines.
>>>> Systematic reviews summarise evidence. If there is one on your subject,
>> great! But if not, you may need to go to original papers. Even if there is
>> an SR, it may be too long and detailed for your purposes so you may prefer a
>> commentary on the review.
>>>>
>>>> If you are planning an in-depth review, for example, for departmental
>> policy, you may want to see original papers too.
>>>>
>>>> So I teach students, "it all depends".
>>>>
>>>> Most of us, most of the time, will be satisfied with searches where
>> filters have been written for us and which cover a wide set of data. One
>> such is TRIP, already mentioned. Another is SUMSearch
>> http://sumsearch.uthscsa.edu/ This returns items in a heirachical fashion so
>> that the user can pick down the list from general texts, guidelines, reviews
>> (including the excellent commentaries on reviews, DARE), to original
>> research. SUMSearch also has the facility for focussing the search onto
>> diagnosis, aetiology etc.
>>>> PUBMED clinical queries has a similar facility but its search is
>> limited to Medline and Cochrane.
>> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/entrez/query/static/clinical.shtml
>>>>
>>>> B/W, Kev Hopayian
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -------on 16/2/08 18:35, Moacyr Roberto Cuce Nobre at [log in to unmask]
>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dear all
>>>>
>>>> When you are ?teaching? how to search evidence, what do you recommend
>> ?first?: Cochrane, PubMed (Free Internet Access - contains Cochrane Reviews)
>> or some search engines like TRIP Database ( Free Internet Access - contains
>> both)?
>>>>
>>>> Remember that PubMed contains a lot of article in other languages beside
>> english!
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for comments
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Moacyr
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________
>>>> Moacyr Roberto Cuce Nobre, MD, MS, PhD.
>>>> Diretor da Unidade de Epidemiologia Clínica do InCor
>>>> Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo - Brasil
>>>> 55 11 3069 5941 (fone/fax)
>>>> 55 11 9133 1009 (celular)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Kamlesh Bhargava
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Kamlesh Bhargava
>
|