Talk:PubMed Information & Talk:PubMed Links at HealthHaven.com

(Rated C-Class)

	v • d • e This article is within the scope of WikiProject Academic Journals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Academic Journals on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C	This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
	This article has been marked as needing an infobox.
See WikiProject Academic Journals' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.

WikiProject Medicine

(Rated C-Class, Mid-importance)

Medicine portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.

C

This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject NIH

This article is within the scope of WikiProject NIH, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the National Institutes of Health on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.

[edit] Tutorial

I'm planning to add direction on "how to use" pubmed within the next month. Does anyone have suggestions or comment? Alot of the work will be based on the linke below, or perhaps I should just link to it. My idea is to have people search this database to be able to cite good then in the Wiki.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?rid=helppubmed.section.pubmedhelp.Understanding_Your_S

meatclerk 18:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd be inclined not to. The Pubmed tutorial on their site is quite long and complex. It's not quite the role of an encyclopedia to act as a manual. But I'm open to suggestions. Mccready 02:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I plan to make a condensed two (2) page printable version. The basics, type in the searh box, your results mean this, then an explaination of opening an account, no more.

The biggest problem with their tutorial is that it reads like documentation, not a real tutorial. A tutorial should be enough to get your feet wet, then point (in a bullet format or other form) where to find other resources or instructions. That's about it.

meatclerk 07:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, let's see what you come up with. have fun :-) Mccready 11:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

This note is posted with some disappointment. For now, I am putting off indefinitely the authoring of the tutorial I suggested. meatclerk 16:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] subjects covered

I added a brief statement; The paragraph for nursing was disproportional to the other disciplines. DGG 17:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I added recently the following entry to a very useful site (PubMedReader) but somebody deleted it. Why? It's free and open to anybody. There is not even ADVERTISMENT? Please leave this entry there. Thanks!

PubMed Reader - A free web-based research program for displaying customized PubMed search results

[edit] Question

I have (in vain) tried to find out, what "PubMed" stands for, though searching on the homepage on pubmed a long time and googling as well. I think this should, no: must be explained on Wiki. Pub: Public? Publications? Med: Medicine? Medical? Medline? "Public Medline" as distinct from versions of Medline intended for professional use by experts. Such versions are still around, developed and marketed by Ovid, SilverPlatter, WebofScience, and dozens of others. Professionals still often prefer them--they are smoother, though they do no more in essence. DGG 08:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

A comprehensive answer to this question is given by NLM here: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/services/pmname.html

Question: What does the name PubMed stand for?

Answer: - When we came up with the name PubMed, we were not trying to use an acronym or an abbreviation. However, we can say that: - the 'Med' part of the name refers to the MEDLINE database, which is what PubMed searches - the 'Pub' part of the name can be thought of as either public (since PubMed is the free version of MEDLINE) or as publisher (since PubMed includes links to publisher web sites). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.104.23.41 (talk) 08:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Biowizard

Its not primarily a front end to PubMed, though it does offer that function. its a "journal club" type of site where people nominate PubMed articles to discuss. I see no indication its affiliated with PubMed. There are some similar sites, run by BMC and others. It looks interesting, and if anyone has written an article or two about it, it would perhaps be appropriate for an article of its own.DGG 08:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Re adding content without prior discussion is not good practice, and if continued s usually considered vandalism. DGG 04:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Genomediff

A very important program, but it should go probably under Entrez--its not really part of the core Medline/PubMed. And we seem to badly need a general article on genome databases, though we have articles on individual ones. --perhaps you could write one? DGG 05:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Language coverage

What is the language of the indexed articles? Only English? --84.20.17.84 07:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

No, all languages can be indexed, including non-western languages (mainly Chinese and Japanese). These are indexed with an English title in square brackets, and a notice of the language of the article. Often an English abstract is also provided. A random example 217.122.83.79 16:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] how to search pubmed

It is not usual to includes this sort of detail in WP articles. I know its valuable. I recognize that the advice is good advice. Please try to fid some way of doing it without giving sample question and hits, talking rather about the structure of the database and the way it parses search queries. DGG (talk) 07:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Telegram-Syle Searching

It is a pity that this section has now been shortened and that some actual 'telegram' search examples have been deleted. It is constantly and everywhere suggested that PubMed is difficult to use (that's why there are so many 'alternative' interfaces). I believe (and could provide the references) that PubMed is easy to use, just like Google. I dislike all those artefacts (field searching, e.g. [ip]). Most clinicians use the 'telegram', probabilistic style, and not the protocol-driven complex search strategies. What a pity that the few telegram-style search examples have gone - I put them there, so I am of course biased (?). I accept that a full tutorial has no place in a Wikipdia article of this kind, but a few actual examples of how CLINICIANS use PubMed??? Reinhard Wentz, London

I've remove the section per WP:NOTHOWTO. --Ronz (talk) 15:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Giving search examples does not constitute a Tutorial OR 'How to'. They just show an easy way of how PubMed is being used (by most people). BTW: What are the complex Tag searches doing on this page? A list of tags would be enough. The Boolean search examples are of very doubtful value. Why not delete them, and just leave the notes on Boolean searching (you deleted my amendments. Why? They are factual and not tutorial) I put them back.

I hope my 'additional functionality' bits (Related Articles, Clinical Queries, etc.) are acceptable and will stay. I left the search examples out.

Reinhard Wentz sleuthmedical@yahoo.com 23.10.08

Thanks for responding. I'm not sure what to do with any of it. None of "Searching PubMed" section seems to be appropriate for an encyclopedia article. --Ronz (talk) 17:28, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

as a purely practical problem, the Pubmed search page is notably obscure and difficult to use properly, and the help is fairly well hidden. A list of searchable fields is a reasonable part of the description of a database. As for Boolean, PubMed does not' use pure Boolean searching, but an approximation to it--see their help--so a description of which of the normal search functions work and how they work is appropriate also. From experience writing these things, generally examples are the clearest way. Perhaps we can find a suitable help guide that has them for us to link to. DGG (talk) 04:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you DGG for these comments. I agree that the PubMed search page is complex, but why obscure? Of course it is difficult to use it properly! Finding relevant, current and valid medical information is a difficult process requiring training and experience, as mentioned in the current version of WP PubMed. My point is that PubMed also allows for simple, focused question to be answered quickly if a simple search 'telegram' formulation is entered in the search window (ignoring all the complexity of a comprehensive, exhaustive search). (Many ‘alternative’ Medline interfaces reflect this and offer a simple search window, without PubMed optional search sophistication).

There is a further important point (absent from most discussions of How To Search Pubmed): clinicians usually do not require a complex, exhaustive search: they already have a good (probalistic) idea of possible diagnoses and treatment options and just want to do a quick search to increase the probability that they are on the ‘right track’. A excellent example of this ‘Bayesian’ approach to searching (The priors? 'Given that I am a clinician...) is provided in the paper by Glasziou (PMID: 17884906) which I used in my original set of ‘telegram search formulations’: He did a ‘quick search’, found some eight papers and used inter alia the abstract from only one of those hits to confirm his treatment choice. Brilliant! See his defence in the Rapid Response section to his article (http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/335/7620/612#177973). Sorry for being verbose. Reinhard Wentz

this doesn't refer to some of the alternate interfaces. Most of them are reasonably good. The very best one, though, was in my opinion a fill-in-the-boxes interface called "Internet Grateful Med" which NLM withdrew a number of years ago--in my cynical opinion because it was so good it competed favorably with the commericial interfaces. DGG (talk) 04:43, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Your comment re 'Grateful Med' is indeed slightly cynical. A very reasonable explanation for the NLM's decision to drop Grateful Med is given here: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/services/igm.html In addition: PubMed has now an 'Advanced Search Beta' interface which allows fill-in-the-boxes searching. Reinhard Wentz

[edit] Citation Searching on PubMed

What's this section doing in a Wikipedia PubMed article? PubMed is not a citation index. This section should be deleted. Lack of citation data is NOT a limitation of PubMed! A motorbike hasn't got four wheels, so what? Google Scholar doesn't map to subject headings, so what? Reinhard Wentz, London

agreed. But a statement of what the "related articles" actually are is appropriate. DGG (talk) 04:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. But I hesitated to give examples lest this would constitute a tutorial. A simple reference to how the 'see related article' algorithm works (from Pubmed Help) would perhaps suffice. Reinhard Wentz

I am not too good with editing a WP article. I would have further points but perhaps we can continue this thread via e-mail? Reinhard Wentz, sleuthmedical@yahoo.com you ! americans and europeans what do you think about asian medical experienses and progresses? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.52.6.73 (talk) 19:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism

The recently added critcism

'The use of tags and boolean operators makes this search engine far less powerful than mainstream equivalents. This is mostly due to the fact that there are so many operators that users cannot remember them. The PubMed search engine is effective, but for most scientists it is a poorly constructed interface more akin to a computer programmer than a day-to-day user'

seems unjustified. As mentioned elsewhere in the article proper, PubMed can be searched without using tags or Boolean operators. The criticism is not supported by a reference and I am minded to delete it. Reinhard Wentz 22.07.09 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.106.26.96 (talk) 09:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] New PubMed Interface October 2009

I added two notes on the new PubMed interface, launched in October 2009, one under 'Quick Searches', one under 'Alternative Interfaces'. Reinhard Wentz 07.11.09 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.104.15.218 (talk) 08:47, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Contents