Examining Biological Abstracts on Two Platforms: What Do End Users Need to Know?

Bandyopadhyay, Aditi

doi:10.1080/01942620903579377

Cited by 5 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Previous studies in this area had predominantly looked at the variations in results generated from the same database but hosted on different platforms, and reasons for these variations . This project bridges the gap between this understanding and the practical assessment of host platforms for complex searches, as would be expected in a systematic review.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…In addition, a search strategy should be as transparent as possible and documented in a way that enables it to be evaluated and reproduced . Evidence indicates that comprehensive search strategies are required for systematic reviews, as basic or intermediate searches could miss key papers . Consequently, search strategies for systematic reviews are often complex and can be hundreds of lines long, with many combinations of Boolean logic, wildcards and adjacency/proximity instructions.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, Kimball produced an analysis of three platforms (OvidSP, EBSCO and Engineering Village) for searching one database (GeoRef) but did not examine the specific requirements for complex searching or produce a useable checklist. In addition, there are several studies that examined the results of individual searches carried out on the same database but on different platforms . Younger and Boddy assessed the performance of the database AMED across three platforms (DIALOG DataStar, OVID and EBSCOhost) and found the number of hits can vary considerably with basic searches.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Casler produced a table of features of five host platforms available at the time, but no overall evaluation of comparative data. Bandyopadhyay evaluated the information retrieval of Biological Abstracts on two platforms (SilverPlatter and EBSCOhost) using both novice and complex queries on each one. This study found that more complex searching generated the best results and concluded that database providers were developing user‐friendly interfaces without simplifying the underlying search mechanisms, such that unskilled searching would not find the desired information.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

A checklist to assess database‐hosting platforms for designing and running searches for systematic reviews

Bethel

Rogers

2014

Health Info Libraries J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Systematic reviews require literature searches that are precise, sensitive and often complex. Database-hosting platforms need to facilitate this type of searching in order to minimise errors and the risk of bias in the results. Objectives: The main objective of the study was to create a generic checklist of criteria to assess the ability of host platforms to cope with complex searching, for example, for systematic reviews, and to test the checklist against three host platforms (EBSCOhost, OvidSP and ProQuest). Method: The checklist was developed as usual review work was carried out and through discussion between the two authors. Attributes on the checklist were designated as 'desirable' or 'essential'. The authors tested the checklist independently against three host platforms and graded their performance from 1 (insufficient) to 3 (performs well). Results: Fifty-five desirable or essential attributes were identified for the checklist. None of the platforms performed well for all of the attributes on the checklist. Conclusions: Not all database-hosting platforms are designed for complex searching. Librarians and other decision-makers who work in health research settings need to be aware of the different limitations of host platforms for complex searching when they are making purchasing decisions or training others.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A checklist to assess database‐hosting platforms for designing and running searches for systematic reviews

Bethel

Rogers

2014

Health Info Libraries J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The users' experiences and the results from searching the same database through different platforms may vary, as better and more sophisticated analytical and refining tools are being constantly developed by vendors (Bandyopadhyay 2010). SciFinder (SF) is a platform that carries two large databases-CAPLUS and MEDLINE, which can be searched together or separately.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Selecting a Database for Drug Literature Retrieval: A Comparison of MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science

Baykoucheva

2010

Science & Technology Libraries

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Taylor & Francis holds the copyright of this article for all situations other than single use copies made for scholarly purposes.Three widely used databases—MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science—were compared for their relative ability to retrieve the largest number of articles within the drug literature, using three search terms: two for specific drugs (atorvastatin and olanzapine) and one for a major class of drugs (statins). These drugs and the class of drugs were chosen for their longevity and continued high clinical and scientific interest, as indicated by the many articles concerning them published in scholarly and professional journals over the last two decades. Significant differences were observed in the journal coverage and the number of documents each database retrieved, with Scopus significantly outperforming the other two databases in these respects. Based on the results from this limited but by no means atypical study of comparative strengths and degree of coverage, the best option for retrieving the largest numbers of articles on a particular drug in the literature would be to use both Scopus and Web of Science, as these two databases complement each other with respect to the journal coverage. MEDLINE retrieved much smaller numbers of documents in all searches and should be used only when the other two databases are not available

show abstract

Non‐agricultural databases and thesauri

Bartol

2012

Program

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose -The paper aims to assess the utility of non-agriculture-specific information systems, databases, and respective controlled vocabularies (thesauri) in organising and retrieving agricultural information. The purpose is to identify thesaurus-linked tree structures, controlled subject headings/terms (heading words, descriptors), and principal database-dependent characteristics and assess how controlled terms improve retrieval results (recall) in relation to free-text/uncontrolled terms in abstracts and document titles. Design/methodology/approach -Several different hosts (interfaces, platforms, portals) and databases were used: CSA Illumina (ERIC, LISA), Ebscohost (Academic Search Complete, Medline, Political Science Complete), Ei-Engineering Village (Compendex, Inspec), OVID (PsycINFO), ProQuest (ABI/Inform Global). The search-terms agriculture and agricultural and truncated word-stem agricultur-were employed. Permuted (rotated index) search fields were used to retrieve terms from thesauri. Subject-heading search was assessed in relation to free-text search, based on abstracts and document titles. Findings -All thesauri contain agriculture-based headings; however, associative, hierarchical and synonymous relationships show important inter-database differences. Using subject headings along with abstracts and titles in search syntax (query) sometimes improves retrieval by up to 60 per cent. Retrieval depends on search fields and database-specifics, such as autostemming (lemmatization), explode function, word-indexing, or phrase-indexing. Research limitations/implications -Inter-database and host comparison, on consistent principles, can be limited because of some particular host-and database-specifics. Practical implications -End-users may exploit databases more competently and thus achieve better retrieval results in searching for agriculture-related information. Originality/value -The function of as many as ten databases in different disciplines in providing information relevant to subject matter that is not a topical focus of databases is assessed.

show abstract

Examining Biological Abstracts on Two Platforms: What Do End Users Need to Know?

Cited by 5 publications

References 13 publications

A checklist to assess database‐hosting platforms for designing and running searches for systematic reviews

A checklist to assess database‐hosting platforms for designing and running searches for systematic reviews

Selecting a Database for Drug Literature Retrieval: A Comparison of MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science

Non‐agricultural databases and thesauri

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About