ArticleJMIR medical informatics2015
Analysis of PubMed User Sessions Using a Full-Day PubMed Query Log: A Comparison of Experienced and Nonexperienced PubMed Users.
Article in JMIR medical informatics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Physiotherapists' Use of Web-Based Information Resources to Fulfill Their Information Needs During a Theoretical Examination: Randomized Crossover Trial.Journal of medical Internet research · 2020Trial
- Representation of Social Determinants of Health terminology in medical subject headings: impact of added terms.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2024Article
- Cameriere's open apices methodology for dental age estimation in children: a scoping review from a Latin American perspective.Forensic science, medicine, and pathology · 2024Article
- Forensic odontology and dental age estimation research: a scoping review a decade after the NAS report on strengthening forensic science.Forensic science, medicine, and pathology · 2023Article
- Rethinking the Journal Impact Factor and Publishing in the Digital Age.The Journal of clinical and aesthetic dermatology · 2020Review
- Impact of a Search Engine on Clinical Decisions Under Time and System Effectiveness Constraints: Research Protocol.JMIR research protocols · 2019Article
- Finding the Integrated Care Evidence Base in PubMed and Beyond: A Bibliometric Study of the Challenges.International journal of integrated care · 2018Article
- Expert Search Strategies: The Information Retrieval Practices of Healthcare Information Professionals.JMIR medical informatics · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPubMed is the largest biomedical bibliographic information source on the Internet. PubMed has been considered one of the most important and reliable sources of up-to-date health care evidence. Previous studies examined the effects of domain expertise/knowledge on search performance using PubMed. However, very little is known about PubMed users' knowledge of information retrieval (IR) functions and their usage in query formulation.
objectiveThe purpose of this study was to shed light on how experienced/nonexperienced PubMed users perform their search queries by analyzing a full-day query log. Our hypotheses were that (1) experienced PubMed users who use system functions quickly retrieve relevant documents and (2) nonexperienced PubMed users who do not use them have longer search sessions than experienced users.
methodsTo test these hypotheses, we analyzed PubMed query log data containing nearly 3 million queries. User sessions were divided into two categories: experienced and nonexperienced. We compared experienced and nonexperienced users per number of sessions, and experienced and nonexperienced user sessions per session length, with a focus on how fast they completed their sessions.
resultsTo test our hypotheses, we measured how successful information retrieval was (at retrieving relevant documents), represented as the decrease rates of experienced and nonexperienced users from a session length of 1 to 2, 3, 4, and 5. The decrease rate (from a session length of 1 to 2) of the experienced users was significantly larger than that of the nonexperienced groups.
conclusionsExperienced PubMed users retrieve relevant documents more quickly than nonexperienced PubMed users in terms of session length.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.