Dataset Information

All Information Is Not Equal: Using the Literature Databases PubMed and The Cochrane Library for Identifying the Evidence on Granulocyte Transfusion Therapy.

ABSTRACT: To be able to take well-informed decisions or carry out sound research, clinicians and researchers alike require specific information seeking skills matching their respective information needs. Biomedical information is traditionally available via different literature databases. This article gives an introduction to two diverging sources, PubMed (23 million references) and The Cochrane Library (800,000 references), both of which offer sophisticated instruments for searching an increasing amount of medical publications of varied quality and ambition. Whereas PubMed as an unfiltered source of primary literature comprises all different kinds of publication types occurring in academic journals, The Cochrane Library is a pre-filtered source which offers access to either synthesized publication types or critically appraised and carefully selected references. A search approach has to be carried out deliberately and requires a good knowledge on the scope and features of the databases as well as on the ability to build a search strategy in a structured way. We present a specific and a sensitive search approach, making use of both databases within two application case scenarios in order to identify the evidence on granulocyte transfusions for infections in adult patients with neutropenia.

SUBMITTER: Metzendorf MI

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4264499 | biostudies-other | 2014 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

All Information Is Not Equal: Using the Literature Databases PubMed and The Cochrane Library for Identifying the Evidence on Granulocyte Transfusion Therapy.

Metzendorf Maria-Inti MI Schulz Manuela M Braun Volker V

Transfusion medicine and hemotherapy : offizielles Organ der Deutschen Gesellschaft fur Transfusionsmedizin und Immunhamatologie 20140915 5

To be able to take well-informed decisions or carry out sound research, clinicians and researchers alike require specific information seeking skills matching their respective information needs. Biomedical information is traditionally available via different literature databases. This article gives an introduction to two diverging sources, PubMed (23 million references) and The Cochrane Library (800,000 references), both of which offer sophisticated instruments for searching an increasing amount ...[more]

PMID: 25538539

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundFinding duplicates is an important phase of systematic review. However, no consensus regarding the methods to find duplicates has been provided. This study aims to describe a pragmatic strategy of combining auto- and hand-searching duplicates in systematic review and to evaluate the prevalence and characteristics of duplicates.Methods and findingsLiteratures regarding portal vein thrombosis (PVT) and Budd-Chiari syndrome (BCS) were searched by the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane library databases. Duplicates included one index paper and one or more redundant papers. They were divided into type-I (duplicates among different databases) and type-II (duplicate publications in different journals/issues) duplicates. For type-I duplicates, reference items were further compared between index and redundant papers. Of 10936 papers regarding PVT, 2399 and 1307 were identified as auto- and hand-searched duplicates, respectively. The prevalence of auto- and hand-searched redundant papers was 11.0% (1201/10936) and 6.1% (665/10936), respectively. They included 3431 type-I and 275 type-II duplicates. Of 11403 papers regarding BCS, 3275 and 2064 were identified as auto- and hand-searched duplicates, respectively. The prevalence of auto- and hand-searched redundant papers was 14.4% (1640/11403) and 9.1% (1039/11403), respectively. They included 5053 type-I and 286 type-II duplicates. Most of type-I duplicates were identified by auto-searching method (69.5%, 2385/3431 in PVT literatures; 64.6%, 3263/5053 in BCS literatures). Nearly all type-II duplicates were identified by hand-searching method (94.9%, 261/275 in PVT literatures; 95.8%, 274/286 in BCS literatures). Compared with those identified by auto-searching method, type-I duplicates identified by hand-searching method had a significantly higher prevalence of wrong items (47/2385 versus 498/1046, p<0.0001 in PVT literatures; 30/3263 versus 778/1790, p<0.0001 in BCS literatures). Most of wrong items originated from EMBASE database.ConclusionGiven the inadequacy of a single strategy of auto-searching method, a combined strategy of auto- and hand-searching methods should be employed to find duplicates in systematic review.

Project description:Answering questions such as "Which genes are related to breast cancer?" usually requires retrieving relevant publications through the PubMed search engine, reading these publications, and creating gene lists. This process is not only time-consuming, but also prone to errors.We report GLAD4U (Gene List Automatically Derived For You), a new, free web-based gene retrieval and prioritization tool. GLAD4U takes advantage of existing resources of the NCBI to ensure computational efficiency. The quality of gene lists created by GLAD4U for three Gene Ontology (GO) terms and three disease terms was assessed using corresponding "gold standard" lists curated in public databases. For all queries, GLAD4U gene lists showed very high recall but low precision, leading to low F-measure. As a comparison, EBIMed's recall was consistently lower than GLAD4U, but its precision was higher. To present the most relevant genes at the top of a list, we studied two prioritization methods based on publication count and the hypergeometric test, and compared the ranked lists and those generated by EBIMed to the gold standards. Both GLAD4U methods outperformed EBIMed for all queries based on a variety of quality metrics. Moreover, the hypergeometric method allowed for a better performance by thresholding genes with low scores. In addition, manual examination suggests that many false-positives could be explained by the incompleteness of the gold standards. The GLAD4U user interface accepts any valid queries for PubMed, and its output page displays the ranked gene list and information associated with each gene, chronologically-ordered supporting publications, along with a summary of the run and links for file export and functional enrichment and protein interaction network analysis.GLAD4U has a high overall recall. Although precision is generally low, the prioritization methods successfully rank truly relevant genes at the top of the lists to facilitate efficient browsing. GLAD4U is simple to use, and its interface can be found at: http://bioinfo.vanderbilt.edu/glad4u.

Dataset Information

All Information Is Not Equal: Using the Literature Databases PubMed and The Cochrane Library for Identifying the Evidence on Granulocyte Transfusion Therapy.

Publications

All Information Is Not Equal: Using the Literature Databases PubMed and The Cochrane Library for Identifying the Evidence on Granulocyte Transfusion Therapy.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets