In this exercise we were asked to explore 3 different avenues for obtaining data on a given subject. We were asked to use an electronic index a guideline index and a Google web search. For the electronic index I chose PubMed and for the guideline index we were asked to use National Guideline Clearinghouse or (NCG). I will be comparing and contrasting each of these.
PubMed, the electronic index I chose, was very useful. In a very short period of time I was able to find 19 relevant articles that were current. I started out with a much larger number but was able to use the provided tools to quickly narrow my search. The specific tools such as the use of MeSH terms and advanced search proved to be very efficient. I really liked the citation management features; the ability to send references or save search results was very useful. It interfaces well with other software and after understanding some basic lingo was able to navigate quite well. I am sure there is still a lot to learn but I do now understand the basic functions. After I was able to modify my search, the quality of the material produced was very high. The answer to my clinical question was evident with significant support material.
National Guideline Clearinghouse was also useful but for different reasons. I did not find it quite as user friendly but this may be because I have already had some exposure to PubMed and have not with the NGC. As the name implies it is a guideline clearinghouse. The purpose of this site is to give direction. This purpose is different with PubMed. Depending on what you enter as search criteria PubMed could render a very similar search result. NGC does not have the same capacity as PubMed. I found this resource to be quite limited, at least in the area of my query. I found some of the search results to be rather dated. There were a number of good resources here but my first stop would be with PubMed for this type of search.
Lastly, I investigated Google. This is at the opposite end of the scale as far as results. By using the same search criteria I was able to find many more references, close to 340,000. The problem here is that the quality is very low and it would take significantly more time to find what I was looking for and it may not be from credible sources. I have had a lot of experience with Google and other search engines in the past so I found the features to be very user friendly. With my access to PubMed I am able to get full text articles without extra cost, many of the findings on Google are for additional cost. It is also true that it is a rather biased search were people pay significant sums to have their name or product appear close to the top of the search it has nothing to do with merit or significance.
In summary, I am finding research to be an art form. Similar to the paint on an artist’s palette we have an almost unlimited number of options for research. These options are constantly increasing. As with most things in life the more we do something the more proficient we become. It is important to know first what it is you are looking for, second, where you would most likely find that information and then be astute enough to know when you have found good quality data. Even more importantly, once you have found what you are looking for, be able to synthesize that material and skillfully use it in the clinical setting.
Excellent points concerning the search strategy as an art form. Once you've determined your medium, i.e. charcoal vs. pastels, your work will become easier and more efficient.
ReplyDelete