I think there always has to be a balance of time and efficiency. If you anticipate that everything you are looking for is indexed in Medline, then there isn't going to be much return on investment (ROI) for searching PubMed also. On the other hand, if you think there are additional citations of interest in the 2 million+ citations in PubMed not indexed in Medline then there may be benefit in going the extra mile. This same argument can be said for searching Medline and Embase since Embase now contains Medline, etc.
The second part (removing duplicates) is becoming less of an issue as software for removing duplicates efficiently are becoming more available for daily use.
> Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 19:58:45 +0000
> From:
[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Published Systematic Reviews That Include Search Strategies
> To:
[log in to unmask]>
> On Nov 20, 2013, at 1:21 PM, Dr. Ahmed M. Abou-Setta <
[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> > If you want to look for more examples, the following search may be a start: pubmed[TIAB] AND "ovid medline"[TIAB] AND systematic[sb]
>
>
> December will be a little “slow” here — I think I’ll find some time to run such a search, look at strategies … all the while pondering WHY people would do both Ovid MEDLINE and also Pubmed strategies in support of the same project. There are a few deep secrets, a few “gotchas,” a few little things to check, but… for the most part… it would be a huge redundancy. Unnecessary. The resulting mess (duplicates!) would cause a lot of stress to a project…
>
> ____
>
> Tom Mead
>
> Reference Librarian
>
> Biomedical Libraries
>
> Dartmouth College
> Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth
> Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center
> Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice
> Dartmouth Center for Health Care Delivery Science
>
> Hanover, New Hampshire, USA 03755
