ArticleJournal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA2019
Search results outliers among MEDLINE platforms.
Article in Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Delving Into PubMed Records: How AI-Influenced Vocabulary has Transformed Medical Writing since ChatGPT.Perspectives on medical education · 2025Article
- Identifications of Similarity Metrics for Patients With Cancer: Protocol for a Scoping Review.JMIR research protocols · 2024Article
- Scientometric analysis of trends in global research on acne treatment.International journal of women's dermatology · 2023Article
- MEDLINE search retrieval issues: A longitudinal query analysis of five vendor platforms.PloS one · 2021Article
- A Synthesis of the Sustainability of Remedial Reading Intervention Effects for Struggling Adolescent Readers.Journal of learning disabilitiesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveHypothetically, content in MEDLINE records is consistent across multiple platforms. Though platforms have different interfaces and requirements for query syntax, results should be similar when the syntax is controlled for across the platforms. The authors investigated how search result counts varied when searching records among five MEDLINE platforms.
methodsWe created 29 sets of search queries targeting various metadata fields and operators. Within search sets, we adapted 5 distinct, compatible queries to search 5 MEDLINE platforms (PubMed, ProQuest, EBSCO
resultsWeb of Science and ProQuest searches were the most likely to deviate from the equivalent PubMed searches. EBSCO
conclusionPlatform enhancements among interfaces affect record retrieval and challenge the expectation that MEDLINE platforms should, by default, be treated as MEDLINE. Substantial inconsistencies in search result counts, as demonstrated here, should raise concerns about the impact of platform-specific influences on search results.
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.