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

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.

[1]  J. Wenz,et al.  Searching the medical literature. , 2004, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[2]  C. Adams,et al.  Searching the right database. A comparison of four databases for psychiatry journals. , 1999, Health libraries review.

[3]  E D Johnson,et al.  Criteria for evaluating alternative MEDLINE search engines. , 1998, Medical reference services quarterly.

[4]  D Schoonbaert SPIRS, WinSPIRS, and OVID: a comparison of three MEDLINE-on-CD-ROM interfaces. , 1996, Bulletin of the Medical Library Association.

[5]  Doris B. Marshall To Improve Searching, Check Search Results. , 1980 .

[6]  Melody M. Allison Comparison of CINAHL® via EBSCOhost®, Ovid®, and ProQuest® , 2006 .

[7]  Sandy L. De Groote,et al.  PubMed, internet grateful med, and Ovid: A comparison of three MEDLINE internet interfaces , 2000 .

[8]  Nancy L Wilczynski,et al.  Optimal CINAHL search strategies for identifying therapy studies and review articles. , 2006, Journal of nursing scholarship : an official publication of Sigma Theta Tau International Honor Society of Nursing.

[9]  Christine Urquhart,et al.  Health professionals’ attitudes towards evidence-based medicine and the role of the information professional in exploitation of the research evidence , 1998, J. Inf. Sci..

[10]  Tammy Hoffmann,et al.  The value of an evidence database for occupational therapists: An international online survey , 2007, Int. J. Medical Informatics.

[11]  D. J. Owen,et al.  Information-seeking behavior in complementary and alternative medicine (CAM): an online survey of faculty at a health sciences campus. , 2003, Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA.

[12]  B. Haynes Of studies, syntheses, synopses, summaries, and systems: the "5S" evolution of information services for evidence-based healthcare decisions. , 2006, Evidence-based nursing.

[13]  B. Haynes Of studies, syntheses, synopses, summaries, and systems: the “5S” evolution of information services for evidence-based healthcare decisions , 2007, Evidence-based medicine.

[14]  Glenn Fink,et al.  Googling Medical Topics Returns Decent Results , 2006 .

[15]  Sandy L. De Groote Mlis PubMed, Internet Grateful Med, and Ovid , 2008 .

[16]  Johanna I. Westbrook,et al.  Allied health professionals' use of online evidence: a survey of 790 staff working in the Australian public hospital system , 2004, Int. J. Medical Informatics.

[17]  D. J. Roberts AMED: a bibliographic database for complementary medicine and allied health , 1995 .

[18]  A. Long,et al.  Comparison of bibliographic databases for information on the rehabilitation of people with severe mental illness. , 2001, Bulletin of the Medical Library Association.

[19]  Catherine Arnott Smith,et al.  An evolution of experts: MEDLINE in the library school. , 2005 .

[20]  M. Bonham,et al.  An evaluation of four end-user systems for searching MEDLINE. , 1988, Bulletin of the Medical Library Association.

[21]  C. Begley,et al.  Selecting a database for literature searches in nursing: MEDLINE or CINAHL? , 1996, Journal of advanced nursing.

[22]  J. Craig,et al.  The Evidence Based Practice Manual for Nurses , 2002 .

[23]  K. Dickersin,et al.  Systematic Reviews: Identifying relevant studies for systematic reviews , 1994 .

[24]  Feinglos Sj MEDLINE at BRS, DIALOG, and NLM: is there a choice? , 1983 .