 |
 |
I recently carried out an analysis of 234 GP questions we had answered via the ATTRACT service and which resources had been used. Although not the same as we used a hierarchy of search (so if we found the result in Cochrane or TRIP we didn't use Medline) it is easily adaptable to the scenario that has been described. However, our analysis demonstarted that only 21% of questions were answerable using only 'secondary sources'. Also the most useful secondary source was Prodigy followed by Clinical Evidence. What then stems is what constitues an answer. Cochrane may have a SR of 7 RCTs while Medline might just have the 6 RCTs. Which one answers the question? Best wishes jon > > From: Andrew Booth <[log in to unmask]> > Date: 2004/09/09 Thu AM 09:30:13 GMT > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: Google better than MEDLINE?! how about some Bayes?? > > Hi Martin > > Particularly like the idea of applying a Bayesian type approach to selection > of information sources. > > Your approach as recorded below made me muse whether it would be possible to > develop a likelihood ratio for finding answers to a particular question on > Medline or Cochrane! You would probably have a different nomogram for > different question types. The data probably exists to compute some rough LRs > based on published studies of clinician information needs. > > Oh well I can dream can't I! > > Andrew > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Martin Dawes, Dr." <[log in to unmask]> > To: <[log in to unmask]> > Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 2004 8:01 PM > Subject: Re: Google better than MEDLINE?! how about some Bayes?? > > > What do you mean by the word "better"? > > 1. You have a question or several interlinked questions. > 2. What is the probability that there is a published answer? > 3. If the probability is low that an answer exists which database when > searched would be most likely to exclude an answer existing if your > search is negative. > 4. If the probability is high that an answer exists which database would > be most likely to rule in that an answer exists (and provide the > answer). > > So this morning I saw a woman with Sjogrens who was complaining of > gastritis. > Q1. Does sjogren's cause gastritis? > Q2. In a woman with Sjogren's what is the probability that the gastritis > is caused by Sjogren's? > > The pre-search probability of an answer to Q1 and Q2 existing, as judged > by the resident and I, was moderate. I decided that if the answer to Q1 > was not in a text book then the answer to Q2 & Q1 probably is not going > to exist as the syndrome is not new. I decided on Uptodate as an easy > reference. Q1 answer exists and is positive. Therefore Q2 probably > exists (the post search probability is higher than the pre search > probability) and I will now look on Medline. > > A sub process of this approach is "which search terms include or exclude > an answer existing within certain databases". > > Bayesian approaches to searching??? > Anyone interested in developing this further?? > > Martin Dawes > Acknowledging a discussion with Pierre Pluye > ------------------------------------- > Chair Family Medicine > McGill University > 515-517 Pine Avenue West > Montreal, Quebec > H2W 1S4 > > Canada > Tel 514 398 7375 ext 0227 > Fax 514 398 4202 > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Evidence based health (EBH) > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Djulbegovic, > Benjamin > Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 2004 2:38 PM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: Google better than MEDLINE?! > > Tanya, as strange as it seems to be, but some of my students have been > using Google and anecdotally they were able to locate certain types of > the studies sooner than using MEDLINE (PubMed). I actually wonder if > anyone compared Google with MEDLINE? > thanks for this timely message > best > ben > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Feddern, Tanya [mailto:[log in to unmask]] > Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 2004 2:30 PM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Google better than MEDLINE?! > > > ***cross-posted*** > Hello, everyone. I'd like your thoughts on this. I learned that > supposedly a Missouri occupational therapy professor, who's also an > author and journal editor, advocated using Google and Dogpile (instead > of MEDLINE) to find article citations for evidence-based practice. > Obviously, she doesn't know about the powerful features of specialized > literature databases such as the PubMed or Ovid software for searching > MEDLINE. If she did, she wouldn't be using Google to find evidence for > patient care (nor suggesting this in an invited lecture). > Unfortunately, this idea is probably being picked up by others. > > Have any of you heard of other respected faculty telling students and > healthcare professionals to use Google instead of MEDLINE? How did you > address that? Please feel free to forward this. I will summarize to > the list(s). > > Take care, > > Tanya > > Tanya Feddern, MLIS, AHIP, MOT, OTR/L > http://www.geocities.com/nqiya/EBMbib.html > http://www.geocities.com/nqiya/index.html > Evidence-Based Medicine Assistant Professor; Reference & Education > Services > Librarian University of Miami School of Medicine, Louis Calder Memorial > Library > ###################################################################### > This transmission may be confidential or protected from disclosure and > is only for review and use by the intended recipient. Access by > anyone else is unauthorized. Any unauthorized reader is hereby > notified that any review, use, dissemination, disclosure or copying of > this information, or any act or omission taken in reliance on it, is > prohibited and may be unlawful. If you received this transmission in > error, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you. > > ###################################################################### > ----------------------------------------- Email provided by http://www.ntlhome.com/