Earlier I was thinking about which third-party PubMed tool to review, when I noticed that something didn’t seem right. Then it hit me: I’m not being specific. I’ve been using the terms PubMed and Medline interchangeably, when that is incorrect.

MEDLINE is the largest component of PubMed…snip…In addition to MEDLINE citations, PubMed also contains:

In-process citations which provide a record for an article before it is indexed with MeSH and added to MEDLINE or converted to out-of-scope status.
Citations that precede the date that a journal was selected for MEDLINE indexing (when supplied electronically by the publisher).
Some OLDMEDLINE citations that have not yet been updated with current vocabulary and converted to MEDLINE status.
Citations to articles that are out-of-scope (e.g., covering plate tectonics or astrophysics) from certain MEDLINE journals, primarily general science and general chemistry journals, for which the life sciences articles are indexed with MeSH for MEDLINE.
Some life science journals that submit full text to PubMedCentral® and may not yet have been recommended for inclusion in MEDLINE although they have undergone a review by NLM, and some physics journals that were part of a prototype PubMed in the early to mid-1990’s.

I’ve been saying PubMed third party tools, when what I *so far* have meant is third party tools for Medline.


Comments are closed.