Monday, January 26, 2009

Nursing@Ovid Database

About a month ago I had the opportunity to try out a new Ovid product called Nursing@Ovid (N@O). N@O's primary users are the nurses on the floor, who need answers to everyday (and maybe not so everyday) clinical questions. N@O is designed so that it can search three or more portals (additional databases) and Ovid's Nursing Collection (books and journals) at one time, similar to a universal search engine. These portals (databases) do not have to be Ovid owned databases. Therefore, libraries can add CINAHL, PubMed, Proquest’s Nursing & Allied Health Source, etc. as portals to N@O. The ability to search three portals at one time is standard, the option to add additional portals beyond the three costs extra. You can even add Amazon.com as a portal but since it is a nursing resource it would probably behoove you to stick with nursing and medically related databases.

N@O is on the OvidSP platform, meaning users have the ability to search using OvidSP's Basic or Advanced Search. The Basic search uses OvidSP's natural language processing. As a librarian I find Basic Search a little too basic, but doing a simple keyword search on wound care brought up several very relevant articles which would be helpful to a nurse who needs one or two quick articles for the moment while on the floor.

The Advanced Search is the same advanced search that many librarians prefer. Librarians normally would find Advanced Search more to their liking, but they need to be aware if they are searching multiple databases in the Advanced Search the indexing and field searching can vary according to what portals (databases) are being searched. Searchers should be aware of the other portal's indexing, tree structures (if it has one) and searchable fields because N@O will try and search using that information. But if the portal doesn't have the relevant searchable field then N@O will do a keyword search.
For example: Amazon.com doesn't have medical subject headings as a searchable field in their database. If you are doing MeSH field search and Amazon.com is one of your portals, it will do something similar to a keyword search. Ovid's N@O does deal with external indexes (the portal database's indexes), however if a portal database has a very dissimilar thesaurus, it may difficult do a good subject search. The closer the portal database's thesaurus structure is to N@O's thesaurus the better the subject searching results. Another reason to try and stay with nursing and medical databases as portals.

The results are displayed similar to the way many other OvidSP databases display results. The left hand side offers other methods for nurses to narrow results down to needed information. Nurses can narrow search results down to patient education, care plans, guidelines, etc. Ovid's N@O has some actual care plans as well as material about care plans, and users clicking on the term "care plan" will get both types of information. Currently, there is more material about care plans rather than the actual care plans, however Ovid is aware of this issue and is working to address it for their next release. Because the actual care plans and patient education information are listed in the results together with articles/chapters about care plans and patient education, I think it would be helpful for there to be a distinction between the actual care plans, patient education information, etc and articles/chapters about those things. Such a distinction whether it is an icon or wording, would allow busy nurses on the floor to easily select the appropriate results with less confusion.

If an institution subscribes to Clini-eguide, the N@O display also features a tab at the top of search area enabling the user to search Clini-eguide. However, when the user clicks on the tab the transition between N@O and Clini-eguide is a little awkward. The ability to search a product like Clini-guide, could be quite helpful and a powerful addition to N@O. Recently Wolters Kluwer just acquired UpToDate, it is unclear as to how this will impact or work with Clini-eguide. I remember sitting in on a presentation by the UpToDate reps who noted that almost 50% of the database usage was coming from nurses. Wolters Kluwer's acquisition of UpToDate, its impact on Clini-eguide and subsequent impact on N@O makes for an interesting evolution should Ovid still keep this feature available in N@O. If this feature is kept, my only suggestion would be to make the transition between Clini-eguide (or whatever it might morph into) and N@O more seamless. In an ideal world it would be nice for the results to displayed within the N@O platform.

It is helpful to know that Ovid is planning on a second update to N@O. It is my sincere hope they begin to add more unique content such as actual guidelines, care plans, and patient education information. I also would like to see them provide a quick and easy way for busy nurses to distinguish between these important aids and the articles/chapters about care plans or patient education. These two key improvements will make N@O even more of a needed resource on the floor rather than a universal search engine with nursing resources.

I look forward to the second update and if I am able to try it out I will write an update to Nursing@Ovid.

I am curious to those who have N@O, what do you like about it or don't like about it. How are your nurses using it? What kind of portals are you searching? Feel free to comment so that others can benefit from your insights.

Labels: , ,

Tuesday, September 30, 2008

CINAHL on EBSCO vs. CINAHL on Ovid

As it gets closer to the end of the year and libraries with CINAHL Ovid are forced to switch to CINAHL EBSCO, we are seeing more frustration from librarians regarding the differences in searching the two different search platforms.

I admit I am a die hard Ovid user. But I have been playing around with CINAHL on EBSCO ever since they released EBSCO 2.0. There are some things I really like about EBSCO's platform, but there are some things I really hate and find clunky when I am searching CINAHL. I am not the only one who feels this way, just browse through some recent MEDLIB-L threads and you can see plenty of others comparing searching on the two systems. David Dillard wrote very extensively about the differences between the two systems and how they handle multi database searching, nesting terms, field searching, and truncation.


Here are some of the things I noticed that have been giving me minor headaches:


There is a big difference for saving, print, emailing, and downloading. While I am not a big fan of Ovid's Citation Manager box and I tend to like EBSCO's folder system for selecting citations to print, email, save, etc. EBSCO's has not built into its system a method for saving all results in the set. EBSCO's system is set up for the individual searcher who can easily go through the results on their own and select relevant ones while conducting the search. It is not set up for librarians who conduct a search and then want to send the results to a patron. I just went to the eye doctor yesterday and my prescription changed, so perhaps I am just not seeing it, but there is no icon or link to select all search results. Therefore the librarian must click on every single citation to save to the folder. A slightly faster method to this would be to display 50 citations and then click on the link to add 1-50 to the folder. Then you click on the folder to send the citations via email. This is annoying and time consuming.


PDFs email out separately. If you are emailing a search that contains citations with full text articles in PDF form, those PDF articles and their citation are sent as individual emails. This method of emailing results is the default. Again this great for the individual searcher who will expect to see multiple emails in their account, but it is a poor method for a librarian sending a search results email to a patron. It is best for librarians conducting searches for patrons to uncheck the send PDF and send HTML as separate emails boxes. Leave the box, "current search history" checked. This will send all of the citations in one email and provided a persistent URL to each citation that the patron can click on and view their full text options.


While I take issue with EBSCO's method for emailing PDFs and HTMLs, please note that citations emailed from OVID are STILL lacking persistent URLs. This improvement is WAY OVERDUE from Ovid.


A few people have mentioned that thesaurus searching or searching using the subject heading is very clunky (at best) in CINAHL. I completely agree. This is one area that Ovid by far outshines EBSCO. We have the "Suggest Subject Terms" box checked as our default setting so when you type in a term like heart attack you are taken to the subject mapping screen where you can either check the box to search it as a keyword or check the box for Myocardial Infarction. Once you check a box (or boxes) you must click the search database button at the top of the screen. This is a little confusing because people tend to want to click on the browse button instead. The search box next to the browse button for searching the thesaurus not for specifically for searching or adding terms to your search. It is a poor location and poor design for this tool because it is easily mistaken as an add to search button.

If you want to add more terms to your original search then you must hit the Clear button at the top of the search button and type in a new term. This is extremely confusing! Everybody's first inclination is to type your new term in the box that says, "Add the following to your search: Term(s)." If you do this you will not be sent to the thesaurus and you will be doing a keyword search!

Some libraries have tried to prevent this confusion by using Advanced Search as their default screen. Advanced search gives the user multiple search boxes. This really doesn't help the problem, it just adds more search boxes to the confusion. EBSCO still defaults to searching terms as keywords when there is already a term in the first box. So if you want it to search your term as a subject heading then you must ALWAYS delete whatever is in the first/top search box and put the new term in.

Since you are doing a lot of single term searching (to ensure that you are searching using subject terms), you will have to click on the Search History/Alerts to combine your individual subject searches together. For example if you did three separate subject searches on cholesterol, myocardial infarction, and congestive heart failure, you must click on the Search History/Alerts link, delete everything in the search box and then check the boxes representing each subject search and combine them appropriately. If you do not delete everything in the search box prior to checking the boxes and clicking the "Add" button you will get whatever term is in the search box (usually the one leftover from your most recent search) combined with the items you checked. This is frustrating.

I am really going to miss Ovid's easy subject mapping and combining of terms.

Every database company creates their own platform and user interface. The methods you would use to search PubMed may not always be appropriate for Ovid Medline and vice versa. In the past librarians had the option to search CINAHL through different companies, Ovid, EBSCO, Proquest, and they usually picked the interface that was the right price and met their searching needs. Soon people will only be able to use EBSCO and they must adjust their methods and style of searching to best accommodate the interface. Not every difference is a shortfall, some things are better and some things are just different. EBSCO has a lot of nice features that Ovid and other platforms do not have such as the hover abstract and persistent URLs in emailed results. Only by experimenting with the systems will we learn the best methods for ourselves and our users.



Labels: , , ,

Monday, June 30, 2008

Thougts on EBSCO 2.0

I really like the look and feel of EBSCO 2.0. Here is a brief run down of the new features you will find in EBSCO 2.0.



REMEMBER: EBSCO 2.0 will go live sometime in July!


Please note: I have only been testing CINAHL in EBSCO 2.0. My original test search was Caffeine and Arrhythmia. I did a few different methods of searching. I searched using subject headings, text words, and the combining terms using the search history.

Search Results: They are displayed in the middle of the screen. Quick methods to narrow the results further are display in two frames on either side of the middle screen. The nice thing is that these side screens can be collapsed providing more screen space to view the results in the main center screen. On the left hand frame, users have the option to limit their results by Source Type, Subject, Subject Major Heading, Age, Gender, and Publication Type. I am a little confused as to the difference between Publication Type (which only has book chapter) and Source Type (which has Periodicals, Book/Monographs, and CEUs). Why have both, why aren't they all under one "type," either Source Type or Publication Type?



You can click on the small arrow on the frame border to collapse or expand (once collapsed) the frame. In order to see how the left hand frame performed I just searched for Arrhythmias as a subject term. I then narrowed my search down using only the options provided on the left hand frame. I was able to easily narrow it further to Females, 65+, and Heart Failure, Congestive. EBSCO 2.0 provides a link to more subject headings from the left frame. For example, Heart Failure Congestive was not listed as a subject on the left hand frame but I just clicked More and EBSCO 2.0 provided me with a list of a few more possible subject terms. Just like in the older version of EBSCO, if users have narrowed themselves too far by using the left hand frame, they can click on the breadcrumb links up at the top of the results to broaden the search again. However, in 2.0 users can now remove items from the breadcrumb trail by clicking on the "x" and if they want, users can start a whole new search using any of the terms listed in the breadcrumbs.



In the 2.0 version the right hand frame allows people to limit results to full text and references available. It is also the area where items in the save folder are displayed. I think this is a nice feature that allows you to see at a glance the titles of articles you have saved. But if it is distracting or takes up too much screen space, users can click on the frame arrow and collapse it. Searchers can click on the Search Options link to see the entire limiting options within CINAHL. The main search screen grays out and the limit screen is super imposed on top allowing the searcher to quickly select the desired limits.

Searching Itself: From what I can tell not much has changed between 2.0 and regular EBSCO. I am not a big fan of EBSCO's search interface. I think the confusion and problems come when users try and search using the Subject Terms. We have the default checked to automatically suggest subject terms because we think using subject terms in the medical databases (such as CINAHL) is a better way to start off searching. When searchers type in a term like arrhythmia it maps to suggested subject headings. Here is where it gets confusing. The searcher selects the term then must look up at the top and click Search Database. It is extremely easy to accidentally click Browse, I have done it myself quite a few times. Clicking Browse just retrieves and displays the same set of subject headings. To librarians we usually know we clicked the wrong button, to regular users it appears they just caught in a loop.

Search History: If a user has multiple searches and wants to combine them together, they will want to click on the Search History link which located just above the search results (similar location to where the Search History tab is in regular EBSCO). This is another area that still could use some improvement and can be confusing to users. EBSCO keeps the current search in the search box and it is still present in the box when users click on Search History. The user must delete the search strategy left in the search box when they are checking searches they wish to combine. If they don't, the checked boxes are combined with the left over search strategy causing some confusing results.

Viewing Search Results within Search History: In regular EBSCO when users clicked on view search results it exited the Search History area and displayed the results. In EBSCO 2.0 it stays within the Search History and displays the results below the Search History. This can be confusing because unless users pay attention they might just think they are caught in a loop constantly viewing the Search History. It is not immediately obvious that they must scroll down to view the results.



Viewing Search Results in general: The citation display in 2.0 seems to be a little easier to read and has a slightly cleaner look than regular EBSCO. I think this because citation's title is displayed on one line while the rest of the citation information is displayed below. It also appears that the title is in a slightly larger font than the rest of the citation. For the most part I never had any problems with regular EBSCO's citation display, but this seems to be nice subtle improvement.

My absolute favorite feature improvement is the ability to hover over the magnifying glass to see the abstract while still viewing the list of citation results. No more clicking the title to see the abstract then clicking again to get back to the results list. Simply hover over the magnifying glass next to each citation and a bubble pops up with the abstract, then if the searcher is interested in the full text they can click on the buttons within the bubble to add it to the folder or view the PDF.



Easier Bookmarking: In regular EBSCO searchers could see the persistent URL at the bottom of the citation but now EBSCO 2.0 makes it easier bookmark citations by providing direct linking to a whole slew of bookmarking services such as del.ici.ous, furl, digg, etc. Articles, searches and publications can all be bookmarked.



Other features: The following features are not yet available in CINAHL and MEDLINE or are not as noticeable.



Image Quick View (IQV) - The thumbnail of the image(s) in articles can be found below the citation on the results list. These images can be pictures, illustrations, charts, and graphs. However, this option is only available with EBSCOhost journals with native PDF. All other full text journal articles with images will not have not IQV. While this is a nice way to handle images, I found that there just weren't a lot of results within CINAHL that included the IQV.



Date Slider: The date slider is not yet available for MEDLINE or CINAHL. When it is available it will be located in the frame on the right hand side. I tried using it in Academic Search Premier, it was ok, but I found it a lot easier just to type in the limiting dates beneath slider bar rather than sliding it to the desired range.



SmartText: SmartText searching is not yet available for MEDLINE or CINAHL. It allows the searcher to search any text from any article or document. Users paste a sentence, phrase, paragraph, or entire pages into the search box and will retrieve a relevant result list. I am not sure how much medical librarians will need this type of search. Perhaps if we have bits and pieces of the article we would be able to find the exact article. I thought this might be helpful for teachers or librarians investigating student plagiarism. I decided to try this method of searching in Academic Search Premier. I selected SmartText from the Advanced Search options and then I cut and paste in the box the sentence, "Cardiologists from Chicago report the case of a healthy 23-year old woman who was brought to the emergency room because of palpitations (a feeling of her heart racing) and chest tightness shortly after she drank GNC Speed Shot and a Mountain Dew soft drink. Her heart rate was dangerously high, and the doctors had to give her a medication to reduce it to normal."

I got 158,566 results (full text, 2005-2008) and the original article with that text was not listed as a top result, I couldn't find it, it was buried somewhere within those other articles. Over 100,000 citations is an awful lot to go through, especially when the simple search on caffeine produced a mere 821 citations (full text, 2005-2008). I am not so sure how SmartText is at all helpful to anybody.



Final Thoughts:

I like the overall look and feel of the new EBSCO 2.0. I think the display is cleaner and easier to navigate. I especially like hovering to view the abstract and the fact that bookmarking is easier.



I am still not a fan of EBSCO's search interface for medical or nursing searching. I think Ovid handles mapping much better and still has the best search interface (despite its quirks). If I could just attach Ovid's mapping and search interface with the rest of EBSCO 2.0's features and design, I would be a happy searching librarian.



I am confused as to how certain features like IQV, the Date Slider, SmartText would be helpful, relevant or needed by medical librarians searching the medical and nursing and allied health literature.

Don't forget to try EBSCO 2.0 out for yourself and read about the enhancements and changes. Tomorrow is July and EBSCO said it will release 2.0 sometime in July, so there is not much time left to play around before it goes live.

Labels: , , ,

Wednesday, June 18, 2008

EBSCO 2.0 Beta Available

If you are an EBSCO customer you should know that EBSCO 2.0 is available in Beta to help users test drive and familiarize themselves with the new interface before it becomes official in July of 2008.


You can get to EBSCO 2.0 by clicking on the New Features links on the top right hand area EBSCOhost.


Here are some things you should know before you start to play with the new version.

  • Administrators will not have the ability to customize the interface settings during the EBSCOhost 2.0 BETA preview.
  • A few databases including the CINAHL and MEDLINE suites of databases will not have the date slider and SmartText Searching features available at the release of EBSCOhost 2.0. They do expect to have these features available on these databases soon.
  • Users are encouraged to try out the My EBSCOhost features in the EBSCOhost 2.0 BETA but current personal accounts will not be available.
  • Users are free to set up a new temporary account in the BETA version to store articles and set up alerts but any saved content will not be carried over to your current account. Additionally, any saved alerts will not run. When EBSCOhost 2.0 is released, your current My EBSCOhost account will work properly and your saved information will be available.
  • Because this BETA version is being hosted differently than the current EBSCOhost, users may experience some performance issues or possibly a temporary interruption as updates are made. This will not be the case when EBSCOhost 2.0 is released in July 2008.
  • Searches conducted in the preview site will not be logged in your institution's statistics.
If you don't have EBSCO but are still interested in the new features EBSCO 2.0 will have, you can go to EBSCO's Marketing site to view a Flash demo (10 min. run time, no audio), PowerPoint slides, descriptions of the new features and functionality, and a brochure.


Time for me to get in there and start kicking the tires. I love trying out new things.

Labels: , , ,

RSS Button Subscribe to this feed.
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
       
 
The Krafty Librarian has been a medical librarian since 1998. She is currently the medical librarian for a hospital system in Ohio. You can email her at: