What a difference an interface makes: Just how reliable are your search results?

Focus on Alternative and Complementary Therapies

Volumn 14, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 5-7

  Boddy, Kate ^a,b   Younger, Paula ^a,c,d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EXETER   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF PLYMOUTH   (United Kingdom)

^c ROYAL DEVON AND EXETER NHS FOUNDATION TRUST   (United Kingdom)

^d PLYMOUTH UNIVERSITY PENINSULA SCHOOLS OF MEDICINE AND DENTISTRY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Database; Interface; Literature searches; Searching

Indexed keywords

ACCESS TO INFORMATION; ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE; ARTICLE; CINAHL; CITATION ANALYSIS; COMPUTER INTERFACE; COMPUTER PROGRAM; DATA BASE; DATA COLLECTION METHOD; INFORMATION RETRIEVAL; MEDICAL LITERATURE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; MEDLINE;

EID: 61449255433     PISSN: 14653753     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.2042-7166.2009.tb01854.x     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Pilkington K. Searching for CAM evidence: an evaluation of therapy-specific search strategies. J Altern Complement Med 2007; 13: 451-9.
2. Raschetti R, Menniti-Ippolito F, Forcella E, Bianchi C. Complementary and alternative medicine in the scientific literature. J Altern Complement Med 2005; 11: 209-12.
3. Pilkington K, Richardson J. Exploring the evidence: the challenges of searching for research on acupuncture. J Altern Complement Med 2004; 10: 587-90.
4. Murphy LS, Reinsch S, Najm WI et al. Searching biomedical databases on complementary medicine: the use of controlled vocabulary among authors, indexers and investigators. BMC Complement Altern Med 2003; 3: 3.
5. Wootton JC. Classifying and defining complementary and alternative medicine. J Altern Complement Med 2005; 11: 777-8.
6. Bjordal JM, Greve G. What may alter the conclusions of reviews? Phys Ther Reviews 1998; 3: 121-32.
7. McAuley L, Pham B, Tugwell P, Moher D. Does the inclusion of grey literature influence estimates of intervention effectiveness reported in meta-analyses. Lancet 2000; 356: 1228-31.
8. Dickersin K, Scherer R, Lefebvre C. Identifying relevant studies for systematic reviews. In: Chalmers I, Altman DG (Eds). Systematic reviews. London: BMJ Publishing Group, 1995.
9. Younger P, Boddy K. When is a search not a search? A comparison of searching the AMED complementary health database via EBSCOhost, OVID SP and DIALOG. Health Info Lib J 2008; doi: 10.1111/i.1471-1842. 2008.00785.x
10. Marshall DB. To improve searching: check search results. Online 1980; 4: 32-47.
11. Salisbury L, Gupta UA. Comparative review of Inspec on EbscoHOST, Engineering Village (EV2), and Institute for Scientific Information (ISI). Charleston Advisor 2004; 6: 5-11.
12. Salisbury L. A comparative evaluation of food science and technology abstracts on ovid's WebSPIRS 5.0 and on FSTA Direct. Charleston Advisor 2005; 7: 5-10.
13. Jacobs M, Edwards A, Graves RS, Johnson ED. Criteria for evaluating alternative MEDLINE search engines. Med Ref Serv Q 1998; 17: 1-12.
14. De Groote SL. PubMed, Internet Grateful Med, and ovid: a comparison of three MEDLINE Internet interfaces. Med Ref Serv Q 2000; 19: 1-13.
15. Feinglos SJ. MEDLINE at BRS, DIALOG and NLM: Is there a choice? Bull Med Libr Assoc 2003; 71: 6-12.
16. Bonham MD, Nelson LL. An evaluation of four end-user systems for searching MEDLINE. Bull Med Libr Assoc 1988; 76: 22-31.
17. Schoonbaert D. Spirs, WinSPIRS and OVID: a comparison of three MEDLINE-on-CD-ROM interfaces. Bull Med Libr Assoc 1996; 84: 63-70.
18. Allison MM. Comparison of CINAHL via EbscoHOST, OVID, and ProQuest. J Elect Resources Med Lib 2006; 3: 31-50.
19. McGowan J, Hogg W, Campbell C, Rowan M. Just-in-Time information improved decision-making in primary care: a randomized controlled trial. PLoS ONE 2008; 3: e3785.
20. Schoones JW. Improving literature searches. Radiology 2007; 243: 301.