Research note. Open letter to the users of the new PubMed: a critical appraisal

García‐Puente, María; Pastor-Ramón, Elena; Agirre, Oskia; Morán, José M.; Herrera-Peco, Iván

doi:10.3145/epi.2020.may.36

Cited by 6 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In PubMed, we set the MeSH and natural terms search to title, abstract and keywords, and applied filters for study designs. It should be acknowledged that PubMed counts articles published in online and print versions separately [ 41 ]. The searches were performed by one author (APB) between January and March 2020.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Microbiome research in general and business newspapers: How many microbiome articles are published and which study designs make the news the most?

Prados-Bo

Casino

2021

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The microbiome is a matter of interest for science, consumers and business. Our objective is to quantify that interest in academic journals and newspapers, both quantitatively and by study design. We calculated the number of articles on the microbiome from the total number of biomedicine articles featured in both PubMed and Spanish science news agency SINC, from 2008 to 2018. We used the Factiva database to identify news stories on microbiome papers in three general newspapers (The New York Times, The Times and El País) and three business newspapers (The Wall Street Journal, the Financial Times and Expansión), from 2007 to 2019. Then, we compared news stories with microbiome papers in PubMed, while also analyzing the frequencies of five study design types, both in the newspapers and in the papers themselves. Microbiome papers represented 0.8% of biomedicine papers in PubMed from 2008 to 2018 (increasing from 0.4% to 1.4%), while microbiome news published by SINC represented 1.6% of total biomedical news stories during the same period (increasing from 0.2% to 2.2%). The number of news stories on microbiome papers correlated with the number of microbiome papers (0.91, p < 0.001) featured in general newspapers, but not in business ones. News stories on microbiome papers represented 78.9% and 42.7% of all microbiome articles in general and business newspapers, respectively. Both media outlet types tended to over-report observational studies in humans while under-reporting environmental studies, while the representation of systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials, randomized controlled trials and animal/laboratory studies was similar when comparing newspapers and PubMed. The microbiome is receiving increasing attention in academic journals and newspapers. News stories on the microbiome in general and business newspapers are mostly based on research findings and are more interested in observational studies in humans and less in environmental studies compared to PubMed.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Microbiome research in general and business newspapers: How many microbiome articles are published and which study designs make the news the most?

Prados-Bo

Casino

2021

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Recent changes to the PubMed search algorithm, including automatic term mapping, have decreased the reproducibility of older searches [ 29 ]:…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

How do search systems impact systematic searching? A qualitative study

Hickner

2023

jmla

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: Systematic reviews and other evidence synthesis projects require systematic search methods. Search systems require several essential attributes to support systematic searching; however, many systems used in evidence synthesis fail to meet one or more of these requirements. I undertook a qualitative study to examine the effects of these limitations on systematic searching and how searchers select information sources for evidence synthesis projects. Methods: Qualitative data were collected from interviews with twelve systematic searchers. Data were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis. Results: I used thematic analysis to identify two key themes relating to search systems: systems shape search processes, and systematic searching occurs within the information market. Many systems required for systematic reviews, in particular sources of unpublished studies, are not designed for systematic searching. Participants described various workarounds for the limitations they encounter in these systems. Economic factors influence searchers’ selection of sources to search, as well as the degree to which vendors prioritize these users. Conclusion: Interviews with systematic searchers suggest priorities for improving search systems, and barriers to improvement that must be overcome. Vendors must understand the unique requirements of systematic searching and recognize systematic searchers as a distinct group of users. Better interfaces and improved functionality will result in more efficient evidence synthesis.

show abstract

“…However, other search engines, free or not, have a common limitation, which is the coverage of the titles included in the databases in which the searches are carried out. For example, PubMed handles more than 30 million records [29], but it does not have all of the articles associated with the health sciences. SCOPUS searches journals (more than 23,000), conferences (120,000) and books (206,000), containing a total of about 77.8 million records [30], but only those indexed by Elsevier [30].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Improving the Reliability of Literature Reviews: Detection of Retracted Articles through Academic Search Engines

Pastor-Ramón

Herrera-Peco

Agirre

et al. 2022

EJIHPE

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nowadays, a multitude of scientific publications on health science are being developed that require correct bibliographic search in order to avoid the use and inclusion of retracted literature in them. The use of these articles could directly affect the consistency of the scientific studies and could affect clinical practice. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the capacity of the main scientific literature search engines, both general (Gooogle Scholar) and scientific (PubMed, EMBASE, SCOPUS, and Web of Science), used in health sciences in order to check their ability to detect and warn users of retracted articles in the searches carried out. The sample of retracted articles was obtained from RetractionWatch. The results showed that although Google Scholar was the search engine with the highest capacity to retrieve selected articles, it was the least effective, compared with scientific search engines, at providing information on the retraction of articles. The use of different scientific search engines to retrieve as many scientific articles as possible, as well as never using only a generic search engine, is highly recommended. This will reduce the possibility of including retracted articles and will avoid affecting the reliability of the scientific studies carried out.

show abstract

Research note. Open letter to the users of the new PubMed: a critical appraisal

Cited by 6 publications

References 4 publications

Microbiome research in general and business newspapers: How many microbiome articles are published and which study designs make the news the most?

Microbiome research in general and business newspapers: How many microbiome articles are published and which study designs make the news the most?

How do search systems impact systematic searching? A qualitative study

Improving the Reliability of Literature Reviews: Detection of Retracted Articles through Academic Search Engines

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About