When comparing electronic indexes, a guideline index , and the web search engine I found that the common thread was accessibility. Each provides quick access to information. The prevailing difference is the quality and relevance of the search. The electronic index I used was Pub Med. It gave me the ability to make my search as broad or as narrow as I wanted by utilizing features such as the limits setting. Although the web search delivered the fastest results, the electronic index provided a more focused search on my topic that in the end saves time by providing exactly those topics for which I am searching rather than sifting through many results. The web search engine Google pulled up a plethora of information, much of which was too broad to suit my intended search. Google Scholar narrowed things down to scholarly articles and I could could further focus my search by completing an advanced search specifying author and date. In spite of the appealing velocity at which I can conduct a search, I prefer the electronic index as I feel that as stated in chapter 13 of our text, it provides a logical, systematic, efficient and effective means by which to obtain current and credible information. The credibliity issue was most important to me. I feel more confident with search results from the electronic index as it is updated more frequently. As well, web searches may not have full text available and at times you are required to pay a fee. The guideline index database was not helpful in my particular search as it seemed very limited. Something that impeded my search was that if I mispelled a word, I was not prompted as I was on Google to verify that that was the word I had intended. The tutorial was very easy to follow but still yeilded no results for my topic. This site would be helpful if I were researching recommended clinical practice for diseases, disorders, or treatments. I cannot see using this alone but would use it to compliment my electronic index results.
Another method I have used to complete searches is identifying a group of journals that I know will provide the evidence based information I need. I have used this feature on the Eccles Library site. I have also logged on websites of professional organizations such as the Oncology Nurrsing Society and the National League for Nursing that allow access to their journals with membership. This has sufficed when I needed to research something quickly and briefly for a presentation or to gain a better understanding of a topic. However, papers and other scholarly work would require a more exhaustive search. In this case I would use an electronic index coupled with a guideline index. I don’t think that I would go to a Web search unless I couldn’t find a specific article in the electronic index.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I also feel that credibility is an issue. When I was finally able to get the Captivate Tutorial to open, I was amazed at the amount of work that goes into keeping some of the data bases current. I too found that some of the articles that would have been pertinent in google scholary required a payment to retrieve the article. I agree that you can do a much faster search in PubMed since you can narrow your terms down. I would like to learn how to use the MeSH tool in PubMed. Another search engine I have used frequently is Academic Search Premier. I have been able to retrieve articles quickly. The feature I really like about that data base is that it has a roll-over icon that gives you the ability to quickly read the abstract. It is a feature I wish PubMed had.
ReplyDeleteI have found that using the guideline index can also be difficult especially on a topic that is not well researched. For my topic on Diabetes in children, it actually helped narrow the results down and provide me with less articles to review. The nice this with having access to the Eccles Library is when I have found an article on google, that I can usually locate the original one through using the ejournals index.