Documentary databases: structured information for fruitful monitoring
Searching the Web has never been so easy. Paradoxically, the abundance of results does not guarantee the nature, relevance, quality or organization of the information. When it comes to documentary or literature research and monitoring, nothing can replace a documentary database. In the field of biomedical sciences, there are several of them, some free, others with subscription fees. Let's have a look at this puzzle where each piece finds its place, and let's have a look at what Cogniges implements to give you a complete picture within the framework of your research or monitoring mandates.
An entry point: free information
The search for information on the free Web goes through two ways: search engines and databases. In the field of health, the offer is as follows:
- Search engine: Google Scholar, a specialized engine indexing the content of periodicals, theses, bibliographic citations or scientific books.
- Databases: the best known, in English, PubMed (National Library of Medicine, United States), but also, in French, LiSSa (Littérature scientifique en santé), to which can be added resources in social sciences.
Advantages:
- Universal and free access to these sources.
- Access to grey literature.
- Interesting pool of information retrieval at no cost other than time spent exploring these sources.
Disadvantages:
- In the case of Google Scholar, the time period covered and the exact contents are unknown; indexing is done by robots, which may yield irrelevant results [1].
- The search functionalities are limited.
- It is necessary to make a critical analysis of the diversity of the documents listed.
- Access to the full text is restricted to the documents listed that are in open access.
For a complete visit: paying databases
Here, the landscape becomes more complicated, because access to the databases goes through platforms, such as Ovid or Ebsco, to which one must subscribe to use the resources. For example, Ovid provides access to Medline, an enhanced version of PubMed, EBMR (Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews), and Embase (Excerpta Medica, in health sciences and pharmacy), as well as to electronic journals and books. Ebsco provides access to Medline Complete (full text) and CINAHL (nursing).
No source is exhaustive or self-sufficient. Several papers have concluded that it is necessary to use several databases together to obtain all relevant results [2], or at least the Medline and Embase databases to obtain more complete results [3].
Moreover, a database requires a rigorous structure, with fields - title, abstract, keywords - that can be searched according to a controlled vocabulary of keywords, called thesaurus, and according to a syntax that allows the design of fruitful search strategies.
Advantages:
- These sources provide access to evidence.
- The architecture of the databases allows a methodical exploitation of the search criteria, provided that one masters these tools.
- These databases more often include the full text of articles.
Disadvantages:
- The costs of subscribing to the platforms are significant.
- The frequency of updates and the controlled vocabulary vary from one database to another, making the search strategies non-transposable.
- There is a rate of redundancy in the results obtained, requiring sorting to eliminate duplicates.
The winning combination that Cogniges proposes to you
The acuity of a literature research or an information watch depends in particular on the optimal exploitation of the best information sources. "The mastery of the research tools, coupled with a minimal mastery of the discipline, necessary to form questions with the right terms [...] is the job of the librarians [4]." At Cogniges, information professionals:
- Know the best sources by subject area.
- Master the syntax and vocabulary used by these sources.Use the best search strategies to find relevant information.
- Optimize the use of resources, whether free or paid.
- Deliver relevant and non-redundant results.
- Document the process used, allowing you to benefit from both knowledge transfer and continuous updating of results.
References
[1] Bibliothèque de l’Université Laval. [n. d.] Tableau comparatif des principaux outils. https://www5.bibl.ulaval.ca/services/soutien-a-ledition-savante-et-a-la-recherche/bibliometrie-et-impact-de-la-recherche/indicateurs-et-sources/tableau-comparatif-des-principaux-outils
[2] Rathbone, J., Carter, M., Hoffmann, T., et Glasziou, P. (2016). A comparison of the performance of seven key bibliographic databases in identifying all relevant systematic reviews of interventions for hypertension. Systematic reviews, 5, 27. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0197-5
[3] Frandsen, T. F., Eriksen, M. B., Hammer, D. M. G., Christensen, J. B., et Wallin, J. A. (2021). Using Embase as a supplement to PubMed in Cochrane reviews differed across fields. Journal of clinical epidemiology, 133, 24–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.12.022
[4] Hery, L., Weill, C., Macé, B., Benoist, D., Boutet, A., Defaux, H., ... et Legendre, O. (2015). Médecins, mettez un bibliothécaire dans votre moteur (de recherche)! Pédagogie médicale, 16(4), 251-260. DOI : https://doi.org/10.1051/pmed/2016010