SRLibProblems
@srlibproblems.bsky.social
Discussing all things #EvidenceSynthesis, quotes from #SysRev consultations, & critiquing published non-systematic #SysRev searches. I am a 🇨🇦 #skybrarian. #canmedlib #medlibs
I have been playing around in the new #EBSCO interface and have thoughts 😅
Has anyone noticed that the symbol used to combine queries in the new EBSCO interface is very similar to that used by #Scopus?
And now I'm starting to see more similarities across the two systems 🤔 #Medlibs #ExpertSearching
Has anyone noticed that the symbol used to combine queries in the new EBSCO interface is very similar to that used by #Scopus?
And now I'm starting to see more similarities across the two systems 🤔 #Medlibs #ExpertSearching
March 25, 2025 at 11:18 PM
I have been playing around in the new #EBSCO interface and have thoughts 😅
Has anyone noticed that the symbol used to combine queries in the new EBSCO interface is very similar to that used by #Scopus?
And now I'm starting to see more similarities across the two systems 🤔 #Medlibs #ExpertSearching
Has anyone noticed that the symbol used to combine queries in the new EBSCO interface is very similar to that used by #Scopus?
And now I'm starting to see more similarities across the two systems 🤔 #Medlibs #ExpertSearching
Happy to accept the compliments. Now I know what my cat persona would be 😅 - "a cat in a library chasing a laser pointer."
My #BlueSkyRoast #Skybrarian
blueskyroast.com/roast/srlibp...
My #BlueSkyRoast #Skybrarian
blueskyroast.com/roast/srlibp...
December 5, 2024 at 6:30 AM
Happy to accept the compliments. Now I know what my cat persona would be 😅 - "a cat in a library chasing a laser pointer."
My #BlueSkyRoast #Skybrarian
blueskyroast.com/roast/srlibp...
My #BlueSkyRoast #Skybrarian
blueskyroast.com/roast/srlibp...
Interesting observation! "web of science" = "web for science" because of and for are both stop-words.
But it does include "web science" which violates the distance part. So that means that it is searching the phrase without the stop-words (i.e. it ignores them) and phrases with the correct distance
But it does include "web science" which violates the distance part. So that means that it is searching the phrase without the stop-words (i.e. it ignores them) and phrases with the correct distance
December 3, 2024 at 1:42 AM
Interesting observation! "web of science" = "web for science" because of and for are both stop-words.
But it does include "web science" which violates the distance part. So that means that it is searching the phrase without the stop-words (i.e. it ignores them) and phrases with the correct distance
But it does include "web science" which violates the distance part. So that means that it is searching the phrase without the stop-words (i.e. it ignores them) and phrases with the correct distance
In comparison, a normal word space (not non-breaking) looks like a center-aligned dot (period) 👇. The normal space runs fine in Scopus, but non-breaking spaces cause a syntax error that is essentially invisible. It wasted 15 min of my time trying various replacements before figuring this out 😒
November 29, 2024 at 1:08 AM
In comparison, a normal word space (not non-breaking) looks like a center-aligned dot (period) 👇. The normal space runs fine in Scopus, but non-breaking spaces cause a syntax error that is essentially invisible. It wasted 15 min of my time trying various replacements before figuring this out 😒
Turns out the type of spacing character used in the second half of the #search was a non-breaking space. You can't tell that it isn't a normal space, until you toggle the view in MS Word to see hidden characters. A non-breaking space character is a small zero symbol. It looks like this 👇.
November 29, 2024 at 1:08 AM
Turns out the type of spacing character used in the second half of the #search was a non-breaking space. You can't tell that it isn't a normal space, until you toggle the view in MS Word to see hidden characters. A non-breaking space character is a small zero symbol. It looks like this 👇.
Ran into an issue while helping troubleshoot #Scopus today. Half the search strings were running fine, but the other half were not. Scopus would say "syntax error", but what? See screenshot from MS Word below. String looked normal to me. I tried replacing the usual suspects (quotes, brackets, etc)
November 29, 2024 at 1:08 AM
Ran into an issue while helping troubleshoot #Scopus today. Half the search strings were running fine, but the other half were not. Scopus would say "syntax error", but what? See screenshot from MS Word below. String looked normal to me. I tried replacing the usual suspects (quotes, brackets, etc)
"review of* review*" = 2 results 😨
Interestingly, on the EBSCOhost interface, you can search a proximity string with the same term on either side (you cannot in Ovid).
(review* N1 review*) = 8310 results (this makes sense - it should be higher than version with the stopword)
#SystematicSearching
Interestingly, on the EBSCOhost interface, you can search a proximity string with the same term on either side (you cannot in Ovid).
(review* N1 review*) = 8310 results (this makes sense - it should be higher than version with the stopword)
#SystematicSearching
November 20, 2024 at 7:13 PM
"review of* review*" = 2 results 😨
Interestingly, on the EBSCOhost interface, you can search a proximity string with the same term on either side (you cannot in Ovid).
(review* N1 review*) = 8310 results (this makes sense - it should be higher than version with the stopword)
#SystematicSearching
Interestingly, on the EBSCOhost interface, you can search a proximity string with the same term on either side (you cannot in Ovid).
(review* N1 review*) = 8310 results (this makes sense - it should be higher than version with the stopword)
#SystematicSearching
(review* of* review*).tw <-- This retrieves the relevant records, without adding extra noise.
Note: you can use the optional wildcard (?, in Ovid) to replace the truncation symbol (*) if the truncation symbol on the stop-word is too noisy (i.e. of* within your string leads to a common phrase).
Note: you can use the optional wildcard (?, in Ovid) to replace the truncation symbol (*) if the truncation symbol on the stop-word is too noisy (i.e. of* within your string leads to a common phrase).
November 19, 2024 at 7:15 AM
(review* of* review*).tw <-- This retrieves the relevant records, without adding extra noise.
Note: you can use the optional wildcard (?, in Ovid) to replace the truncation symbol (*) if the truncation symbol on the stop-word is too noisy (i.e. of* within your string leads to a common phrase).
Note: you can use the optional wildcard (?, in Ovid) to replace the truncation symbol (*) if the truncation symbol on the stop-word is too noisy (i.e. of* within your string leads to a common phrase).
Was reading this recent article (doi.org/10.32384/jeahil20607) and noticed a couple of awesome things:
1) They used 6 datasets and included records from trial registries (clinicaltrials.gov and WHO ICTRP) alongside bibliographic databases.
2) This 👍 visual explaining terms incl precision and recall.
1) They used 6 datasets and included records from trial registries (clinicaltrials.gov and WHO ICTRP) alongside bibliographic databases.
2) This 👍 visual explaining terms incl precision and recall.
October 29, 2024 at 1:45 AM
Was reading this recent article (doi.org/10.32384/jeahil20607) and noticed a couple of awesome things:
1) They used 6 datasets and included records from trial registries (clinicaltrials.gov and WHO ICTRP) alongside bibliographic databases.
2) This 👍 visual explaining terms incl precision and recall.
1) They used 6 datasets and included records from trial registries (clinicaltrials.gov and WHO ICTRP) alongside bibliographic databases.
2) This 👍 visual explaining terms incl precision and recall.
As I update slides for a SR workshop, I am reminded how much I love this table - for explaining the differences between #SystematicReviews, #ScopingReviews, and #MappingReviews. The inclusion of objective and scope information in the table is SO helpful. (DOI: doi.org/10.1016/j.jc...).
September 27, 2024 at 5:46 PM
As I update slides for a SR workshop, I am reminded how much I love this table - for explaining the differences between #SystematicReviews, #ScopingReviews, and #MappingReviews. The inclusion of objective and scope information in the table is SO helpful. (DOI: doi.org/10.1016/j.jc...).
Bluesky now has over 10 million users, and I was #326,912! 🤭
September 17, 2024 at 1:47 AM
Bluesky now has over 10 million users, and I was #326,912! 🤭
Including by the group itself at one point 😆
July 12, 2024 at 11:12 PM
Including by the group itself at one point 😆
Yes! Anyone who has read the #PRISMA statement & other documents would know the label itself is neither title-worthy nor indicative of a study type (or method). One should wonder why #Cochrane, #CampbellCollaboration, #JBI, #CEE, or other similar organizations don't title their reviews like that?
March 15, 2024 at 10:19 PM
Yes! Anyone who has read the #PRISMA statement & other documents would know the label itself is neither title-worthy nor indicative of a study type (or method). One should wonder why #Cochrane, #CampbellCollaboration, #JBI, #CEE, or other similar organizations don't title their reviews like that?
I've noticed this in the titles of reviews for a while.
Inspired by a recent post on the bird app of an article that does this t.co/IKCjfbYTGx, & by the topic of that article (greenwashing), I think #PRISMAwashing is an appropriate name for this practice of including #PRISMA in the title of reviews.
Inspired by a recent post on the bird app of an article that does this t.co/IKCjfbYTGx, & by the topic of that article (greenwashing), I think #PRISMAwashing is an appropriate name for this practice of including #PRISMA in the title of reviews.
March 15, 2024 at 9:52 PM
I've noticed this in the titles of reviews for a while.
Inspired by a recent post on the bird app of an article that does this t.co/IKCjfbYTGx, & by the topic of that article (greenwashing), I think #PRISMAwashing is an appropriate name for this practice of including #PRISMA in the title of reviews.
Inspired by a recent post on the bird app of an article that does this t.co/IKCjfbYTGx, & by the topic of that article (greenwashing), I think #PRISMAwashing is an appropriate name for this practice of including #PRISMA in the title of reviews.
Curious timing on your part. You might find this an interesting read! journals.lww.com/jbisrir/full...
March 14, 2024 at 8:28 PM
Curious timing on your part. You might find this an interesting read! journals.lww.com/jbisrir/full...
I have bad news! This change in field description is not actioned. I tested it today 😭
I tested a TS search & compared it to TI, AB, AK, but the results were different. So, I tested TI, AB, AK, KP and the numbers matched TS.
So, TS no longer mentions KP in the description but is still searching KP
I tested a TS search & compared it to TI, AB, AK, but the results were different. So, I tested TI, AB, AK, KP and the numbers matched TS.
So, TS no longer mentions KP in the description but is still searching KP
January 15, 2024 at 8:04 PM
I have bad news! This change in field description is not actioned. I tested it today 😭
I tested a TS search & compared it to TI, AB, AK, but the results were different. So, I tested TI, AB, AK, KP and the numbers matched TS.
So, TS no longer mentions KP in the description but is still searching KP
I tested a TS search & compared it to TI, AB, AK, but the results were different. So, I tested TI, AB, AK, KP and the numbers matched TS.
So, TS no longer mentions KP in the description but is still searching KP
For folks who use #WebofScience Core Collection and avoided using the Topic field because of the Keywords Plus field, you no longer need to do that.
Topic now searches Title, Abstract, and Author-Keywords, and does not search Keywords Plus anymore 🥳
#ExpertSearching #MedLibs
Topic now searches Title, Abstract, and Author-Keywords, and does not search Keywords Plus anymore 🥳
#ExpertSearching #MedLibs
January 11, 2024 at 1:29 AM
For folks who use #WebofScience Core Collection and avoided using the Topic field because of the Keywords Plus field, you no longer need to do that.
Topic now searches Title, Abstract, and Author-Keywords, and does not search Keywords Plus anymore 🥳
#ExpertSearching #MedLibs
Topic now searches Title, Abstract, and Author-Keywords, and does not search Keywords Plus anymore 🥳
#ExpertSearching #MedLibs
Solved but confusing!
Single term (no truncation) only returns exact titles ❌
Add * & it works ✔️
Example:
SO=(palliative) ❌
SO=(palliative*) ✔️
SO=(palliative* care*) has the same result with/without "", & allows terms to be apart 🙄
SO=(palliative care*) looks for "palliative care*" as a phrase 🙃
Single term (no truncation) only returns exact titles ❌
Add * & it works ✔️
Example:
SO=(palliative) ❌
SO=(palliative*) ✔️
SO=(palliative* care*) has the same result with/without "", & allows terms to be apart 🙄
SO=(palliative care*) looks for "palliative care*" as a phrase 🙃
January 10, 2024 at 1:13 AM
Solved but confusing!
Single term (no truncation) only returns exact titles ❌
Add * & it works ✔️
Example:
SO=(palliative) ❌
SO=(palliative*) ✔️
SO=(palliative* care*) has the same result with/without "", & allows terms to be apart 🙄
SO=(palliative care*) looks for "palliative care*" as a phrase 🙃
Single term (no truncation) only returns exact titles ❌
Add * & it works ✔️
Example:
SO=(palliative) ❌
SO=(palliative*) ✔️
SO=(palliative* care*) has the same result with/without "", & allows terms to be apart 🙄
SO=(palliative care*) looks for "palliative care*" as a phrase 🙃
New logo! Thanks @craftyhilary.bsky.social for pointing it out. Maybe this will help people understand that EBSCOhost is NOT a database 🤔? One can hope.
December 20, 2023 at 6:17 PM
New logo! Thanks @craftyhilary.bsky.social for pointing it out. Maybe this will help people understand that EBSCOhost is NOT a database 🤔? One can hope.
![PRISMA flow diagram with the following data.
[Top left] Records from Databases (n=200), other sources (n=10)
[Top right] Records removed before screening: Duplicate orders removed (n=180)
[Second row left] Records screened (n=120)
[Second row right] Records excluded (n=60)
[Third row left] Reports assessed for eligibility (n=100)
[Third row right] Full-text articles excluded with reasons (n=83)
[Fourth row left] Studies included in review (n=17)](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:pgugpeul7u5jhilt44ibmifo/bafkreiccp7a2nrs5akfvxw6kts6x4wp2ailii3tey5mv3rzd4wliqhpjle@jpeg)
New insight about how #WebofScience translates a phrased search query in the Topic field.
We know that for phrases without " ", WoS separates the words & uses AND between. But in the TS (topic) field, it seems to allow the phrase to split across fields. i.e. Search #1, rather than #3.
#MedLibs
We know that for phrases without " ", WoS separates the words & uses AND between. But in the TS (topic) field, it seems to allow the phrase to split across fields. i.e. Search #1, rather than #3.
#MedLibs
November 14, 2023 at 10:43 PM
New insight about how #WebofScience translates a phrased search query in the Topic field.
We know that for phrases without " ", WoS separates the words & uses AND between. But in the TS (topic) field, it seems to allow the phrase to split across fields. i.e. Search #1, rather than #3.
#MedLibs
We know that for phrases without " ", WoS separates the words & uses AND between. But in the TS (topic) field, it seems to allow the phrase to split across fields. i.e. Search #1, rather than #3.
#MedLibs