...
首页> 外文期刊>Health information and libraries journal >When is a search not a search? A comparison of searching the AMED complementary health database via EBSCOhost, OVID and DIALOG.
【24h】

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

机译:什么时候不是搜索?通过EBSCOhost,OVID和DIALOG搜索AMED补充健康数据库的比较。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

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.
机译:背景:参与这项研究工作的研究人员在埃克塞特卫生图书馆和半岛医学院的补充医学科(PCMD)中工作。在这种协作环境中,可以访问三个机构的电子资源。这包括使用不同的接口访问AMED和其他数据库。目的:本研究的目的是调查在使用相同的搜索词时,搜索与AMED联合健康和补充医学数据库不同的接口是否产生相同的结果。方法:搜索以下基于Internet的AMED界面:DIALOG DataStar; EBSCOhost和OVID SP_UI01.00.02。来自这三个数据库的搜索结果都保存在尾注数据库中,以方便分析。还编制了一份清单,比较了界面功能。结果:在我们的初始搜索中,DIALOG返回29个命中,OVID 14和Ebsco8。如果我们假设DIALOG返回100%的潜在命中,OVID最初仅返回48%的命中,而EBSCOhost仅返回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可能会错过70%以上的搜索命中率。随后的EBSCOhost对不同主题的搜索未能找到通过DIALOG DataStar使用相同关键字检索到的匹配中的21%至86%。在两种情况下,简单的EBSCOhost搜索无法找到通过DIALOG DataStar找到的任何结果。结论:根据界面的不同,使用相同的简单搜索从同一数据库中检索到的匹配数可能会有很大差异。一些简单的搜索无法检索到大量引用。这可能会导致不知情的文献综述,研究经费申请或治疗干预。除了确保关键字,拼写和医学主题词(MeSH)准确反映搜索的性质之外,数据库用户还应包括通配符和截断符,并对其搜索策略进行实质性调整,以获取尽可能多的适当引文。图书馆员在做出购买决定,进行文献搜索和计划用户教育时应意识到这些差异。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号