Using google scholar to conduct a literature search.

This article provides information about conducting a literature search on the Google Scholar website. The article briefly describes how to narrow or expand a search and how to find non-journal literature. Although Google Scholar is not without limitations, it offers a practical starting point for a literature search.

Internet-based information-seeking behaviour amongst doctors and nurses: a short review of the literature.

BACKGROUND: Reviews of how doctors and nurses search for online information are relatively rare, particularly where research examines how they decide whether to use Internet-based resources. Original research into their online searching behaviour is also rare, particularly in real world clinical settings. as is original research into their online searching behaviour. This review collates some of the existing evidence, from 1995 to 2009. OBJECTIVES: To establish whether there are any significant differences in the ways and reasons why doctors and nurses seek out online information; to establish how nurses and doctors locate information online; to establish whether any conclusions can be drawn from the existing evidence that might assist health and medical libraries in supporting users. METHODS: An initial scoping literature search was carried out on PubMed and CINAHL to identify existing reviews of the subject area and relevant original research between 1995 and 2009. Following refinement, further searches were carried out on Embase (Ovid), LISA and LISTA. Following the initial scoping search, two journals were identified as particularly relevant for further table of contents searching. Articles were exclused where the main focus was on patients searching for information or where the focus was the evaluation of online-based educational software or tutorials. Articles were included if they were review or meta-analysis articles, where they reported original research, and where the primary focus of the online search was for participants' ongoing Continuing Professional Development (CPD). The relevant articles are outlined, with details of numbers of participants, response rates, and the user groups. RESULTS: There appear to be no significant differences between the reasons why doctors and nurses seek online Internet-based evidence, or the ways in which they locate that evidence. Reasons for searching for information online are broadly the same: primarily patient care and CPD (Continuing Professional Development). The perceived barriers to accessing online information are the same in both groups. There is a lack of awareness of the library as a potential online information enabler. CONCLUSIONS: Libraries need to examine their policy and practice to ensure that they facilitate access to online evidence-based information, particularly where users are geographically remote or based in the community rather than in a hospital setting. Librarians also need to take into account the fact that medical professionals on duty may not be able to take advantage of the academic model of online information research. Further research is recommended into the difference between the idealised academic model of searching and real world practicalities; and how other user groups search, for example patients.

When is a search not a search? A comparison of searching the AMED complementary health database via EBSCOhost, OVID and DIALOG.

BACKGROUND: The researchers involved in this study work at Exeter Health library and at the Complementary Medicine Unit, Peninsula School of Medicine and Dentistry (PCMD). Within this collaborative environment it is possible to access the electronic resources of three institutions. This includes access to AMED and other databases using different interfaces. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to investigate whether searching different interfaces to the AMED allied health and complementary medicine database produced the same results when using identical search terms. METHODS: The following Internet-based AMED interfaces were searched: DIALOG DataStar; EBSCOhost and OVID SP_UI01.00.02. Search results from all three databases were saved in an endnote database to facilitate analysis. A checklist was also compiled comparing interface features. RESULTS: In our initial search, DIALOG returned 29 hits, OVID 14 and Ebsco 8. If we assume that DIALOG returned 100% of potential hits, OVID initially returned only 48% of hits and EBSCOhost only 28%. In our search, a researcher using the Ebsco interface to carry out a simple search on AMED would miss over 70% of possible search hits. Subsequent EBSCOhost searches on different subjects failed to find between 21 and 86% of the hits retrieved using the same keywords via DIALOG DataStar. In two cases, the simple EBSCOhost search failed to find any of the results found via DIALOG DataStar. CONCLUSIONS: Depending on the interface, the number of hits retrieved from the same database with the same simple search can vary dramatically. Some simple searches fail to retrieve a substantial percentage of citations. This may result in an uninformed literature review, research funding application or treatment intervention. In addition to ensuring that keywords, spelling and medical subject headings (MeSH) accurately reflect the nature of the search, database users should include wildcards and truncation and adapt their search strategy substantially to retrieve the maximum number of appropriate citations possible. Librarians should be aware of these differences when making purchasing decisions, carrying out literature searches and planning user education.

Using the Internet to conduct a literature search.

This article provides advice on how to carry out a successful literature search using electronic databases available on the Internet.