Discovery Tool vs. PubMed: A Health Sciences Literature Comparison Analysis

Ketterman, Elizabeth; Inman, Megan

doi:10.1080/15424065.2014.938999

Cited by 7 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Wildgaard and Lund (2016, p. 670) argued that PubMed has been traditionally “the main database for searching biomedical literature and constructing systematic reviews.” By the end of 2017, the PubMed database included around 27.5 million documents, representing more than 7000 academic journals (Williamson & Minter, 2019). Thus, PubMed was the logical choice to conduct the analysis because of its accessibility to any researcher with Internet access and because of its breadth and depth of coverage related to multiple topics (Ketterman & Inman, 2014). Data collected included authors names, title of the article, journal, type of publication, abstract of the article, institution's name, and document's number.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Three decades of halal food scholarly publications: A PubMed bibliometric network analysis

Mostafa

2022

Int J Consumer Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Halal food research has witnessed a distinct proliferation during the past decade. In this article, we examine the intellectual structure of the field based on 302 PubMed documents written by 686 authors representing 45 nations and spanning 30 years . The study applies bibliometric network techniques to explore the halal food impactful authors, influential journals, collaboration networks and emerging trends. Social network analysis (SNA) techniques are also used to unearth and mine the intellectual structure of the field. Additionally, we use keyword co-occurrence techniques to scrutinize the field's major schools of thought. Results show that the most impactful PubMed outlets publishing halal food research include Food Chemistry, Meat Science, and the Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture. Results also show that the authors' collaboration network in halal food is sparse. Furthermore, results reveal a global "North-South" schism between nations within the domain. Finally, the multiple correspondence analysis (MCA) applied to obtain the halal food research conceptual map and its intellectual structure reflects the depth and breadth of the field.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Three decades of halal food scholarly publications: A PubMed bibliometric network analysis

Mostafa

2022

Int J Consumer Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…PubMed, provided by the National Library of Medicine, is considered a gold standard in health sciences, because it contains one of the largest biomedical indexes in the world and has powerful searching capabilities with its controlled vocabulary and term mapping. Ketterman & Inman (2014) compared the number of citations in PubMed to their discovery platform Summon, which they shared with all of East Carolina University. They concluded that Summon was a good supplement but not a replacement to searching PubMed.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Customizing Summon for a Specific User Population: A Health Sciences Library’s Experience

Cirelli

2022

palrap

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Harrell Health Sciences Library: Research and Learning Commons (HHSL) tailored their discovery solution, Ex Libris Summon, to better meet the needs of its health sciences users. The customizations encourage more sophisticated searching behaviors and improves usability of the library website for browsing and finding known items. HHSL worked with Penn State University Libraries and their Ex Libris Customer Success Manager to create customized search panels as well as turn on features available in Summon. While these customizations are specific to a health sciences library, any library can use these practices to customize their instance of Summon for their user group(s).

show abstract

“…Previous studies such as Ketterman and Inman (2014) have sought to compare WSDs directly with traditional bibliographic databases. However the authors of this study highlight research into typical library user behaviour that shows a preference for Google-style searching over traditional methods due to ease, efficiency, and relevance ranking.…”

Section: Commentarymentioning

confidence: 99%

Web-Scale Discovery Services Retrieve Relevant Results in Health Sciences Topics Including MEDLINE Content

Stovold

2017

EBLIP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A Review of: Hanneke, R., & O’Brien, K. K. (2016). Comparison of three web-scale discovery services for health sciences research. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 104(2), 109-117. http://dx.doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.104.2.004 Abstract Objective – To compare the results of health sciences search queries in three web-scale discovery (WSD) services for relevance, duplicate detection, and retrieval of MEDLINE content. Design – Comparative evaluation and bibliometric study. Setting – Six university libraries in the United States of America. Subjects – Three commercial WSD services: Primo, Summon, and EBSCO Discovery Service (EDS). Methods – The authors collected data at six universities, including their own. They tested each of the three WSDs at two data collection sites. However, since one of the sites was using a legacy version of Summon that was due to be upgraded, data collected for Summon at this site were considered obsolete and excluded from the analysis. The authors generated three questions for each of six major health disciplines, then designed simple keyword searches to mimic typical student search behaviours. They captured the first 20 results from each query run at each test site, to represent the first “page” of results, giving a total of 2,086 total search results. These were independently assessed for relevance to the topic. Authors resolved disagreements by discussion, and calculated a kappa inter-observer score. They retained duplicate records within the results so that the duplicate detection by the WSDs could be compared. They assessed MEDLINE coverage by the WSDs in several ways. Using precise strategies to generate a relevant set of articles, they conducted one search from each of the six disciplines in PubMed so that they could compare retrieval of MEDLINE content. These results were cross-checked against the first 20 results from the corresponding query in the WSDs. To aid investigation of overall coverage of MEDLINE, they recorded the first 50 results from each of the 6 PubMed searches in a spreadsheet. During data collection at the WSD sites, they searched for these references to discover if the WSD tool at each site indexed these known items. Authors adopted measures to control for any customisation of the product setup at each data collection site. In particular, they excluded local holdings from the results by limiting the searches to scholarly, peer-reviewed articles. Main results – Authors reported results for 5 of the 6 sites. All of the WSD tools retrieved between 50-60% relevant results. EDS retrieved the highest number of relevant records (195/360 and 216/360), while Primo retrieved the lowest (167/328 and 169/325). There was good observer agreement (k=0.725) for the relevance assessment. The duplicate detection rate was similar in EDS and Summon (between 96-97% unique articles), while the Primo searches returned 82.9-84.9% unique articles. All three tools retrieved relevant results that were not indexed in MEDLINE, and retrieved relevant material indexed in MEDLINE that was not retrieved in the PubMed searches. EDS and Summon retrieved more non-MEDLINE material than Primo. EDS performed best in the known-item searches, with 300/300 and 299/300 items retrieved, while Primo performed worst with 230/300 and 267/300 items retrieved. The Summon platform features an “automated query expansion” search function, where user-entered keywords are matched to related search terms and these are automatically searched along with the original keyword. The authors observed that this function resulted in a wholly relevant first page of results for one of the search questions tested in Summon. Conclusion – While EDS performed slightly better overall, the difference was not great enough in this small sample of test sites to recommend EDS over the other tools being tested. The automated query expansion found in Summon is a useful function that is worthy of further investigation by the WSD vendors. The ability of the WSDs to retrieve MEDLINE content through simple keyword searches demonstrates the potential value of using a WSD tool in health sciences research, particularly for inexpert searchers.

show abstract

Discovery Tool vs. PubMed: A Health Sciences Literature Comparison Analysis

Cited by 7 publications

References 3 publications

Three decades of halal food scholarly publications: A PubMed bibliometric network analysis

Three decades of halal food scholarly publications: A PubMed bibliometric network analysis

Customizing Summon for a Specific User Population: A Health Sciences Library’s Experience

Web-Scale Discovery Services Retrieve Relevant Results in Health Sciences Topics Including MEDLINE Content

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About