Research note. Open letter to the users of the new PubMeda critical appraisal

  1. María García-Puente
  2. Elena Pastor-Ramon
  3. Oskia Agirre 3
  4. José-María Morán 1
  5. Iván Herrera-Peco 2
  1. 1 Universidad de Extremadura
    info

    Universidad de Extremadura

    Badajoz, España

    ROR https://ror.org/0174shg90

  2. 2 Universidad Alfonso X el Sabio
    info

    Universidad Alfonso X el Sabio

    Villanueva de la Cañada, España

    ROR https://ror.org/054ewwr15

  3. 3 Universidad del País Vasco/Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea
    info

    Universidad del País Vasco/Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea

    Lejona, España

    ROR https://ror.org/000xsnr85

Mostrar afiliaciones +
Revista:
El profesional de la información

ISSN: 1386-6710,  1699-2407

Año de publicación: 2020

Título del ejemplar: Relaciones públicas

Volumen: 29

Número: 3

Tipo: Artículo

DOI: 10.3145/EPI.2020.MAY.36 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso abierto editor

Otras publicaciones en: El profesional de la información

Resumen

PubMed is a free database used daily by about 2.5 million people to search and retrieve scientific documents related to Health Sciences. In May 2020, certain changes were made to its search algorithm, which at first sight improves the location of scientific articles, but upon analyzing its operation in more depth, we detected some changes that make the reproducibility of bibliographic searches difficult. In order to safeguard the reproducibility and replicability of the searches carried out for systematic reviews, narratives and meta-analyzes, we suggest accompanying these strategies with a file in a format compatible with reference managers, to facilitate comparison and verification of the strategy to be replicated in a future.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Canese, Kathi; Chan, Jessica; Collins, Marie; Trawick, Bart; Weis, Sarah (2020). “The new and improved PubMed is here”. NLM Technical bulletin. 2020 May 19. https://www.nlm.nih.gov/pubs/techbull/mj20/mj20_PubMed_new.html
  • Fiorini, Nicolas; Canese, Kathi; Bryzgunov, Rostyslav; Radetska, Ievgeniia; Gindulyte, Asta; Latterner, Martin; Miller, Vadim; Osipov, Maxim; Kholodov, Michael; Starchenko, Grisha; Kirreev, Evgeny; Lu, Zhiyong (2018a). “PubMed Labs: An Experimental system for improving biomedical literature search”. Database (Oxford), v. 2018, bay094. https://doi.org/10.1093/database/bay094
  • Fiorini, Nicolas; Canese, Kathi; Starchenko, Grisha; Kireev, Evgeny; Kim, Won; Miller, Vadim; Osipov, Maxim; Kholodov, Michael; Ismagilov, Rafis; Mohan, Sunil; Ostell, James; Lu, Zhiyong. (2018b) “Best Match: New relevance search for PubMed”. PLoS biology, v. 16, n. 8, pp. e2005343. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2005343
  • García-Puente, María (2020). Search results of the same search strategy perform in 2 different dates. figshare. Dataset. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.12546104.v1
  • Lee, Young-Ho (2018). “An overview of meta-analysis for clinicians”. Korean journal of internal medicine, v. 33, n. 2, pp. 277-283. https://doi.org/10.3904/kjim.2016.195
  • Moher, David; Shamseer, Larissa; Clarke, Mike; Ghersi, Davina; Liberati, Alessandro; Petticrew, Mark; Shekelle, Paul; Stewart, Lesley A.; Prisma-P Group (2015). “Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (Prisma-P) 2015 statement”. Systematic reviews, v. 4, n. 1. https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-4-1
  • National Library of Medicine (2020a). Medline PubMed production statistics. https://www.nlm.nih.gov/bsd/medline_pubmed_production_stats.html
  • National Library of Medicine (2020b). Medline /PubMed data element (Field) descriptions. https://www.nlm.nih.gov/bsd/mms/medlineelements.html
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet