Suppr超能文献

何时搜索不算是搜索?通过EBSCOhost、OVID和DIALOG检索AMED补充健康数据库的比较。

When is a search not a search? A comparison of searching the AMED complementary health database via EBSCOhost, OVID and DIALOG.

作者信息

Younger Paula, Boddy Kate

机构信息

Exeter Health Library, Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust, Universities of Exeter and Plymouth, Exeter, UK.

出版信息

Health Info Libr J. 2009 Jun;26(2):126-35. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-1842.2008.00785.x.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The researchers involved in this study work at Exeter Health library and at the Complementary Medicine Unit, Peninsula School of Medicine and Dentistry (PCMD). Within this collaborative environment it is possible to access the electronic resources of three institutions. This includes access to AMED and other databases using different interfaces.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to investigate whether searching different interfaces to the AMED allied health and complementary medicine database produced the same results when using identical search terms.

METHODS

The following Internet-based AMED interfaces were searched: DIALOG DataStar; EBSCOhost and OVID SP_UI01.00.02. Search results from all three databases were saved in an endnote database to facilitate analysis. A checklist was also compiled comparing interface features.

RESULTS

In our initial search, DIALOG returned 29 hits, OVID 14 and Ebsco 8. If we assume that DIALOG returned 100% of potential hits, OVID initially returned only 48% of hits and EBSCOhost only 28%. In our search, a researcher using the Ebsco interface to carry out a simple search on AMED would miss over 70% of possible search hits. Subsequent EBSCOhost searches on different subjects failed to find between 21 and 86% of the hits retrieved using the same keywords via DIALOG DataStar. In two cases, the simple EBSCOhost search failed to find any of the results found via DIALOG DataStar.

CONCLUSIONS

Depending on the interface, the number of hits retrieved from the same database with the same simple search can vary dramatically. Some simple searches fail to retrieve a substantial percentage of citations. This may result in an uninformed literature review, research funding application or treatment intervention. In addition to ensuring that keywords, spelling and medical subject headings (MeSH) accurately reflect the nature of the search, database users should include wildcards and truncation and adapt their search strategy substantially to retrieve the maximum number of appropriate citations possible. Librarians should be aware of these differences when making purchasing decisions, carrying out literature searches and planning user education.

摘要

背景

参与本研究的研究人员就职于埃克塞特健康图书馆以及半岛医学院和牙科学院(PCMD)的补充医学科。在这种协作环境下,可以访问三个机构的电子资源。这包括使用不同界面访问AMED及其他数据库。

目的

本研究旨在调查使用相同检索词搜索AMED联合健康与补充医学数据库的不同界面时,是否会产生相同的结果。

方法

搜索了以下基于互联网的AMED界面:DIALOG DataStar;EBSCOhost和OVID SP_UI01.00.02。来自所有三个数据库的搜索结果都保存在一个EndNote数据库中,以便于分析。还编制了一份核对清单,比较界面功能。

结果

在我们的初始搜索中,DIALOG返回了29条命中结果,OVID返回了14条,EBSCO返回了8条。如果我们假设DIALOG返回了100%的潜在命中结果,那么OVID最初仅返回了48%的命中结果,EBSCOhost仅返回了28%。在我们的搜索中,使用EBSCO界面在AMED上进行简单搜索的研究人员会错过超过70%的可能搜索命中结果。随后使用EBSCOhost对不同主题进行的搜索未能找到通过DIALOG DataStar使用相同关键词检索到的命中结果的21%至86%。在两种情况下,简单的EBSCOhost搜索未能找到通过DIALOG DataStar找到的任何结果。

结论

根据界面的不同,使用相同简单搜索从同一数据库中检索到的命中结果数量可能会有很大差异。一些简单搜索未能检索到相当比例的引文。这可能导致文献综述、研究资金申请或治疗干预缺乏充分信息。除了确保关键词、拼写和医学主题词(MeSH)准确反映搜索的性质外,数据库用户还应包括通配符和截断,并大幅调整他们的搜索策略,以检索尽可能多的合适引文。图书馆员在做出采购决策、进行文献搜索和规划用户教育时应意识到这些差异。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验