Estimados compañeros, estudiantes, os adjunto algunas referencias bibliograficas, sobre medline.

Estoy intentando hacer un Catalogo de Blogs de Bibliotecas Medicas, algunas de ellas super interesantes, y realizadas por unos grandes profesionales, dedicados a la biblioteconomia en el area de la medicina. Agradecerles a todos ellos, por sus explicaciones, y colaboraciones.

Dentro de poco os ire poniendo el enlace de dichos blogs. Pero por ahora solo puedo dar las gracias a amigos como, Juan Medico de Fuenlabrada, Cristina Escuedero de Puerta de Hierro, Maria luisa Maquedano de la Paz, María Garcia de Torrevieja, Teresa Garcia del Clinico de Malaga, Angel Mones de Asturias, Paco de Pontevedra, y mcuhos mas, no sigo por no cansaros, je je ..

Acaba de publicarse en la revista “European Journal of Internal Medicine” un estudio  que intenta determinar si el uso de PubMed y Google puede ayudar a realizar un correcto diagnóstico.

Os dejo la referencia completa,  por si estáis interesados en saber las conclusiones…

Do PubMed and Google searches help medical students and young doctors reach the correct diagnosis? A pilot study por Matthew E. Falaqa, Fotini Ntziora, Gregory C. Makris, George A. Malietzis, Petros I. Rafailidis
European Journal of Internal Medicine  20 (2009) 778-190
doi: 10.1016/j.ejim.2009.07.014

A lot of discussion out there.

Here’s a collaborative effort by the Woods Hole gang (NLM Alumni) – http://docs.google.com/View?id=ddw7xpw7_16hcjb8td8

Typical researcher spends 12.4 hours a week searching for information. Why not use Google? ‘Cause Google is not semantic.

Go PubMed – Filter PubMed contents against all the terms in the Gene Ontology. If you use simple categorisation for information retrieval potentially increase search burden due to compartmentalisation. However works the other way round too…useful filtering.

Showing some examples of faceted browsing of PubMed content and systematic drilldown into search results. Not easy to blog, but literature exploration in this way is always fascinating. Examples include the analysis of research trends, networks of colaborators etc..new tool in Go PubMed also allows the discovery of indirect links or inferred links.

Have developed a similar system for the web: Go Web (works on the top yahoo search results).

Remarks on Ontology Generation: have developed a plugin for OBO Edit…search for term and plugin makes suggestions for terms that might be included in new ontologies. Points out terms in existing ontologies. Also helps with the generation of definitions for terms…wow this is extremely useful in SO many ways….

Now let’s talk about drugs and targets….

Try and mine for gene mentions in text…find a gene term and then use context to decide what it is we are talking about. Once gene has found look for statistically significant co-occurences. The results have been made available in GoGene. Again can do bibliometric trend analysis – genes are ranked by community interest.

From drugs to genes..what is the link between a gene and a drug using context profiles: what are the disease terms related to a given drug…then to genes.

Gotta stop blogging…enjoying this talk far too much…….

Actualizada la guía de PubMed elaborada por Carlos González-Guitian y María Sobrido, documentalistas de la Biblioteca del Complexo Hospitalario Universitario de A Coruña.  Las guías están disponibles en el portal de Fisterra http://www.fisterra.com

Buscar en Medline con Pubmed: guía de uso en español (pdf)

http://www.fisterra.com/recursos_web/no_explor/pubmed/091113_Guia_PubMed.pdf

Buscar en Medline con Pubmed: guía de uso en español (html)
http://www.fisterra.com/recursos_web/no_explor/pubmed.asp

If you  cannot figure out the new PubMed interface, the University of Manitoba Health Science Library has shared a video on YouTube.

After the 1:34 mark, the video is aimed at Uof Manitoba patrons.

O PubMed da National Library of Medicine possui tutoriais para diferentes formas de pesquisa. Clique nos links abaixo para assistir.

Pesquisa por autor

Pesquisa por autor e assunto

Pesquisa por assunto

Pesquisa por revistas

Pesquisa pelo MESH

Trying to decide on a database cancellation can be fraught with uncertainty.  Evidence-based criteria are important but often shoved out of the way by other considerations. The culling process is a little more sophisticated than resorting to eeny, meeny, miny, moe. Basing decisions on research is laudable, but in the end it’s dollars and a Hobbesian political deftness that count for more. It’s not a case of evidence-be-damned, but rather the Ellenbogengesellschaft – the sharp-elbowed social reality – of collection development.

Consider the following databases: AMED (Allied and Complementary Medicine Database), CINAHL, EMBASE, and Global Health. If you had to cancel one of them, which would it be? The latter might get the boot from some of us, but I’m guessing most health libraries would probably push AMED overboard first. We would justify this to ourselves with the comforting assumption that the combination of the other databases provides good enough coverage of complementary and alternative medicine. CINAHL, for example, is well known for its lavish attention to allied health; PubMed offers its petal-strewn Complementary Medicine subset to smooth the way for us; and so on. And isn’t it true that in the minds of many faculty and health professionals CAM is to real medicine what holy water is to healing? That, to me, is the key issue. Always present in the background of a library’s cancellation decision is one of the guiding principles of a public service, multa docet fames (hunger teaches us many things). Regardless of what the literature tells us, this question cannot be avoided: to which database’s disappearance would the most influential library patrons object least?

Some justly claim their decisions to be reasoned and evidence-based. Others, if pressed, might have to admit that a decision can be biased, gratuitous, hasty, or obviously political. Journal and database cancellations are determined centrally in my world, and hence are mostly out of my hands. I like to think that the best reasons, and not just sharp elbows, are always brought forward before a subscription is dropped. Be that as it may, with respect to CAM resources, a Canadian study [1] has succeeded in undermining most of my notions about the quality and comprehensiveness of PubMed’s coverage of complementary and alternative medicine. I also see AMED in a new light.

AMED acclaimed
In a recently published article in Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine, the authors’ objective was to compare a number of databases relevant to CAM. In all, they searched fifteen databases to identify CAM controlled clinical trials not also indexed in MEDLINE.

Their abstract sums things up adequately:

Not unexpectedly, in their conclusion the authors recommend a multi-database approach:

With budget restrictions looming, the University of Manitoba Libraries has just dumped AMED, which this study identifies as second only to CINAHL for controlled clinical trials coverage in complementary and alternative medicine. Who would have guessed that AMED would stand out in this subject area, considering how poorly it is rated in another recent study which has just been published in Physiotherapy [2]?

AMED def-amed
Researchers at the University of Sydney compared the comprehensiveness of indexing the reports of randomized controlled trials of physiotherapy interventions by eight bibliographic databases (AMED, CENTRAL [Cochrane], CINAHL, EMBASE, Hooked on Evidence, PEDro, PsycINFO and PubMed). The results in a nutshell? PEDro indexed 99% of the trial reports, CENTRAL indexed 98%, PubMed indexed 91%, EMBASE indexed 82%, CINAHL indexed 61%, Hooked on Evidence indexed 40%, AMED indexed 36% and PsycINFO indexed 17%.

Poor AMED comes a cropper here, outclassed as it is by a free resource like PEDro (a name almost as silly as Acubriefs, which sounds like the latest offering from Stanfield’s Ltd., Canada’s self-proclaimed, one-and-only “Underwear Company”). A library might feel quite justified in cancelling its subscription after reading about AMED’s poor coverage of physiotherapy research.

Given these contrasting evaluations of a database’s effectiveness, the question arises as to which evidence will have the most weight in the decision to cancel or retain? Our pair of studies illustrate how difficult it can be to play the database shuffle in making cancellation decisions. When budgets are tight and sacrifices must be made librarians are always ready to lend a hand, but attached to those hands should be sharp elbows.

References

1. Cogo E, Sampson M, Ajiferuke I, Manheimer E, Campbell K, Daniel R, Moher D. Searching for controlled trials of complementary and alternative medicine: a comparison of 15 databases. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2009 May 25. PubMed PMID: 19468052. DOI 10.1093/ecam/nep038.

2. Moseley AM, Sherrington C, Elkins MR, Herbert RD, Maher CG. Indexing of randomised controlled trials of physiotherapy interventions: a comparison of AMED, CENTRAL, CINAHL, EMBASE, hooked on evidence, PEDro, PsycINFO and PubMed.Physiotherapy. 2009 Sep;95(3):151-6. Epub 2009 Apr 23. Review. PubMed PMID: 19635333.

Photo credit: CC licensed flickr photo by fabbio:  http://flickr.com/photos/fabiovenni/240530154/

The interface of PubMed/MedLine has been changed, and so the steps you have to take to get your references from this database into your RefWorks-account.

After marking the titles you want to put into RefWorks, click Send to in the right upper corner. Mark ‘file’ and choose MEDLINE as format. (You can change the order of the titles.)  Save the file to your computer as a text-file.

In RefWorks the steps haven’t changed:

* Choose References > Import
* Behind Import Filter you can select Erasmus University Rotterdam
* Behind Database you select PubMed

Sabem que molts dels que en llegiu feu servir habitualment PubMed i potser ja teniu una o unes estratègies de cerca definides. Però si heu de començar a cercar informació sobre un tema nou us presentem un recurs que us pot ser d’utilitat. Es tracta del bloc PubMed search strategies. Va ser creat per un grup de bibliotecàries de ciències de la salut nord-americanes, tot i que també hi participa una bibliotecària espanyola, concretament de Madrid.
Cada entrada del bloc és una estratègia de cerca sobre un tema determinat. No es tracta d’estratègies de cerca perfectes, però sí que poden resultar molt valuoses per completar o ampliar les pròpies, amb l’avantatge que simplement les heu de copiar i enganxar a PubMed.
El bloc admet comentaris i està obert a la participació de tothom, així que si voleu publicar en ell les vostres estratègies només us heu de posar en contacte per correu electrònic amb una de les autores, la Cindy Schmidt.

Os adjunto información sobre el blog titulado PubMed Search Strategies, creado por bibliotecarias referencistas, la mayoría del sector de las Ciencias de la Salud. Una de las colaboradoras del blog es Concepción Campos Asensio, bibliotecaria del Hospital de Getafe.

Este blog pretende facilitar las búsquedas en PubMed, ofreciendo estrategias específicas con las que se han tenido que enfrentar las colaboradoras en su trabajo diario. Por ejemplo, si un usuario -o vosotros mismos- tenéis que hacer una búsqueda relacionada con la “calidad de vida” podéis acudir al blog y buscar si alguien ha realizado ya la búsqueda y la ha añadido. De esta forma tendríamos un filtro más que sólo tendríamos que añadir a nuestra propia estrategia:

“quality of life”[MeSH Terms] OR hrql OR life qualit* OR qol OR ql OR “quality of life”

 

Para más información ver el blog de María.