Disagreement is *good*!

Could you share more about what your ideal “easy” PubMed search would look like? Would it be sort of a search wizard that would take the query “statins”, offer synonyms and MeSH mappings, then prompt the user for more specifics? (Like asking if the user wants information about dosage, adverse effects, efficacy, etc.) Would it ask the user what condition or discipline their query ins in relation to?

How do you make a PubMed/Medline interface “easier” without sacrificing power and specificity?

One of the big ideas in search is intentions. So when someone searches for something can we know what they’re interested in? To an extent (and I’m not suggesting we’ve done it too well) we’ve had a go with our specialist search engines. For instance if you’re an oncologist and search for statins you’re likely to want different information than, say, a cardiologist. So an oncologist could use this link http://www.tripdatabase.com/cancer/SearchResults.html?categoryid=14&sort=t&criteria=statins and get articles pertient to their profession.

I believe that with software, power and ease-of-use frequently have an inverse relationship. PubMed is powerful, but has a learning curve. Healia PubMed/Medline is much easier to use, but nowhere near as powerful.

1) Healia is a pretty good interface but aren’t you concerned that it misses out over half the potential results as it doesn’t auto-map to MeSH?

Yes, that’s why I specifically mentioned it. See the footnote.

While searching for ‘statins’ is inadequate, it’s also realistic. In the analysis of TRIP the majority (by a long way) were single search terms. I wouldn’t have thought the users of Medline are likely to be significantly more ‘savvy’ than TRIP users.

Lastly, I think it is a mistake to attempt to estimate how people use PubMed based on how they use TRIP. They have different (although overlapping) user bases, they contain different sorts of information, and TRIP doesn’t use a controlled vocabulary. But even if it is, as you write, “realistic”, a search for “statins” in PubMed is mapped to MeSH terms and the user will review the first couple of results pages to see all the most recent articles that match the mapped query. If a user is so unsophisticated as to search just for statins, that search is likely to suffice. Someone who knows that they need more specific information will likely ask for it by querying for something like statins adverse effects.

1) Healia is a pretty good interface but aren’t you concerned that it misses out over half the potential results as it doesn’t auto-map to MeSH?

2) I find the MeSH terms for demographics, especially age, are pretty poor.

3) Take your example of using the tabs, try using side-effects . In Helia you get 31 reviews, in English, from the last 5 years

I’ve repeated your search for side effects of statins. Instead of using Helia’s method, I’ll use my own.

#1 = statins
#2 = myalgia OR myositis OR myopathy OR rhabdomyolysis
#3 = #1 AND #2
Note: #2 is made up of the major side-effects, I used those for demonstration purposes. It didn’t include things such as altered LFTs etc.

If you limit that to the last 5 years and English you get 112 reviews. Are those ‘missing’ 81 reviews important?

In a way I should be pleased; less results is what I requested!

While searching for ‘statins’ is inadequate, it’s also realistic. In the analysis of TRIP the majority (by a long way) were single search terms. I wouldn’t have thought the users of Medline are likely to be significantly more ‘savvy’ than TRIP users.

Don’t get me wrong I think that PubMed is wonderful, I use it every day. But the complexity you praise is also its downfall.

I agree that, in time, new interfaces will come out to enhance and improve access to the literature contained in PubMed. An ‘easy’ way (other than asking a librarian/info specialist) may never come to fruition, but it’d be a shame not to aspire to that.