Now that we know that CINAHL will no longer be available on Ovid in 2008, it might be helpful to take a look at a recent article published in the Journal of Electronic Resources in Medical Libraries , Comparison of CINAHL via EBSCOhost,: Ovid, and ProQuest vol 3 (1) 2006 31 - 50.

Abstract:
CINAHL database characteristics were examined in three vendor products. A number of unanticipated variations concerning category terms, field tags and their definitions, and search results are noted and discussed. Interface highlights are also explored. Knowing the characteristics of the vendor interface being used allows the searcher to accommodate unique variations when helpful or necessary. Usefulness of interface characteristics and features, display settings, and content are framed by the user's experiences, needs, and preferences. This investigation will be of assistance to those who wish to compare characteristics of three major CINAHL versions, and will be of interest and value to any CINAHL user.

The article also includes a chart (Appendix B) which compares side by side the vendor product features. For example it is interesting to know that the "Default Searchable Fields" feature searches way more field in Ebsco than Ovid or ProQuest.

For those of us who use Ovid CINAHL this might be helpful to read before we jump over to Ebsco. Unfortunately, I have no word regarding the availablity of ProQuest CINAHL in the future. As Graham Spooner, Library Manager of a Nursing College Library in Australia, it would be nice to know how Ebsco's acquisition of CINAHL will effect those libraries with ProQuest CINAHL. I emailed Scott BernierDirector of Communications EBSCO Publishing (since he was so kind to help straighten out my confusion regarding Ovid and Ebsco CINAHL) regarding ProQuest, but I have not heard anything.