ArticleJournal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA2016
Comparison of three web-scale discovery services for health sciences research.
Article in Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Overlaps of multiple database retrieval and citation tracking in dementia care research: a methodological study.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2021Article
- Design and Evaluation of a Contextual Model for Information Retrieval From Web-Scale Discovery Services to Improve Evidence-Based Practice by Health Care Practitioners: Mixed Methods Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2019Article
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
objectiveThe purpose of this study was to investigate the relative effectiveness of three web-scale discovery (WSD) tools in answering health sciences search queries.
methodsSimple keyword searches, based on topics from six health sciences disciplines, were run at multiple real-world implementations of EBSCO Discovery Service (EDS), Ex Libris's Primo, and ProQuest's Summon. Each WSD tool was evaluated in its ability to retrieve relevant results and in its coverage of MEDLINE content.
resultsAll WSD tools returned between 50%-60% relevant results. Primo returned a higher number of duplicate results than the other 2 WSD products. Summon results were more relevant when search terms were automatically mapped to controlled vocabulary. EDS indexed the largest number of MEDLINE citations, followed closely by Summon. Additionally, keyword searches in all 3 WSD tools retrieved relevant material that was not found with precision (Medical Subject Headings) searches in MEDLINE.
conclusionsNone of the 3 WSD products studied was overwhelmingly more effective in returning relevant results. While difficult to place the figure of 50%-60% relevance in context, it implies a strong likelihood that the average user would be able to find satisfactory sources on the first page of search results using a rudimentary keyword search. The discovery of additional relevant material beyond that retrieved from MEDLINE indicates WSD tools' value as a supplement to traditional resources for health sciences researchers.
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.