coComments related to laikaspoetnik

Pubmed changes at the front do

2009-09-05T02:10:47.968+02:00

Pubmed changes at the front door (2009/04/01/)

been exceptionally busy at wor

2009-08-09T21:27:43.243+02:00

been exceptionally busy at work, we’re beginning to finish up a much needed, much discussed by librarians, redesign of PubMed. We’ve put a ton of user interaction effort into this

Single Citation Matcher will s

2009-08-09T21:27:23.243+02:00

Single Citation Matcher will stay where it is, it won’t become a part of advanced search… even if advanced search contains the same functionality.My educated guess, I think you’ll see previews of changes around the middle of the year.

Hello again LaikasI meant to c

2009-08-09T21:27:13.243+02:00

Hello again LaikasI meant to come back to this blog ages ago but I was reminded of it after reading this http://nelh.blogspot.com/2009/03/broken-users-or-broken-system.htmlIn the example I gave I knew that anaemia was not a recgnised side effect of Marfan’s, but I was searching for something like a case report which might show that there is a possible connection. That is what I wanted to demonstrate to the patient. We know the cause of her anaemia- she has menorrhagia.The student was thiinking in exactly the same way as you with regards to damage to blood vessels. But beeding due to aortic dissection is catastrophic. It is not the cause of the chronic anaemia, which is the condition this patient had.The fact that I pulled up on;y irrelevant resukts was enough to reassure me (and the student!)Thanks again AM

@anne marie. About your first

2009-08-09T21:27:03.243+02:00

@anne marie. About your first comment: Not everyone can access OVID MEDLINE. I think PubMed should have the same functionalities as OVID. Putting terms between “” doesn’t always succeed in PubMed, and will exclude automatic term mapping. Remember that you often will miss a lot by using quotes. PubMed is a very small database as compared to Google and doesn’t contain the full text. For clinicians it is more important to find really relevant papers than to find the papers that coincidentally use certain words in a particular order.MeSH are mostly very useful. But it is not as important in every search. In fact you might already use MeSH without noticing it. e.g. if you type anaemia AND marfan syndrome in the search bar, this is translated in appropriate MeSH and keywords (look under Details). It yields only 20 hits, mostly not very relevant, but it is not because of your search. Perhaps a textbook or review about Marfan would be more useful. If somebody with Marfan is strongly anemic I would wonder, whether he/she didn’t have a serious bleeding, bc that is the most dangerous thing in Marfan. Thus the question would perhaps be: what is a safe Hb in Marfan? Google Scholar might also be useful, because you can search in the full text, not only in title and abstract.Generally speaking, I always look under Details whether terms are translated correctly. Most times I also go to the MeSH-database, to check whether the most suitable MeSH are used. I use MeSH together with textwords. Usually I don’t apply limits or MESH subheadings, but use clinical queries and/or (other) search filters.Would you like me to show some searches in separate posts?@rachel Indeed. Thnx.@Dear Bianca. I am as concerned as you are that the the changes will be suddenly introduced. Asked people on twitter whether they had more info on when to exactly expect the changes. Nobody could tell. Probably the wisest thing is to anticipate and adapt your courses and instructions as if the advance search was already implemented. It will save you some nasty surprises.@anonymous user. Indeed, the Single Citation Matcher is now more or less included in the advanced search (2nd block).

@bianca The change will not be

2009-08-09T21:26:53.243+02:00

@bianca The change will not be instant, and there will be notice, don’t worry about that.Also, don’t worry about the disappearance of Single Citation Matcher… despite the rumors, it isn’t going anywhere.

Do you know when ‘Soon, very s

2009-08-09T21:26:43.243+02:00

Do you know when ‘Soon, very soon…’ will be? I saw these changes announced in PubMed’s Technical Bulletin in November/December 2008, where the timeframe was worded as ‘In the near future’. Ever since, I’ve been dreading the impending change, especially since I could just see it happening on the day of one of our instructions (bye bye screencasts etc…). So far, nothing yet. Any news as to when this will happen, approximately?

OK… I’m trying to think of one

2009-08-09T21:26:33.243+02:00

OK… I’m trying to think of one ofthe times I recently used Pubmed to look for clinical info. I was seeing a patient with Marfan’s syndrome with a student. She had anaemia and the student wondered if this might be a complication of Marfan’s. How would using MeSH help in a situation like this? I’m very willing to learn how to improve my own clinical searching! Anne Marie

Anne Marie, I didn’t expect it

2009-08-09T21:26:23.243+02:00

Anne Marie, I didn’t expect it, but the medical students we train on PubMed really, really love MeSH. They like the control and the term suggestions and just seeing right away how to limit to some of the subheadings and such, and often find this easier than just entering a Google-like search in the search box.

Hello I don’t see what is wron

2009-08-09T21:26:13.243+02:00

Hello I don’t see what is wrong with googilizing the search process. As you point out it is still possible to use OVID, and surely putting phrases in quotes works the same way as in google? I never use MeSH in pubmed. For that I use OVID. To me, Pubmed should be an easy to use way of accessing Medline. So making it simpler will encourage people to use it rather than just googling. The think that would most improve Pubmed for me is the option to look at citations as in Google scholar. Anne Marie

think Web 2.0 is incompatible

2009-08-01T06:04:40.612+02:00

think Web 2.0 is incompatible with evidence-based medicine (see @laikas wonderful discussion of The Web 2.0 – EBM split). What is important is to develop critical thinking skills and learn to assess the validity of

Which refers to @sandnsurf’s p

2009-07-30T13:53:36.815+02:00

Which refers to @sandnsurf’s post: Is Twitter the essential blogging nutrient and his comment on my blog: “the most important thing is that you are actually a tree in this ecosystem, you are out there

2.- Spoetnic L. The Web 2.0-EB

2009-07-02T05:58:47.531+02:00

2.- Spoetnic L. The Web 2.0-EBM Medicine split. [1] Introduction into a short series. Laika’s MedLibLog [documento en Internet] 4 de Enero de 2009 [citado el 20 de Julio de 2009]. Disponible en URL: http://laikaspoetnik.wordpress.com/2009/01/04/the-web-20-ebm-medicine-split-1-introduction-into-a-sh...

medical student from Hungary,

2009-05-27T08:38:57.268+02:00

medical student from Hungary, who runs the award-winning medical blog Scienceroll. According to the web 2.0 model of Hugh Carpenter, mentioned in a previous post, Bertalan (Berci) just finished his journey as a Web 2.0 jedi: he started a web 2.0 company:

think Web 2.0 is incompatible

2009-05-25T12:01:55.968+02:00

@anne marie. MeSH are mostly v

2009-04-13T14:11:53.949+02:00

@anne marie. MeSH are mostly very useful. But it is not as important in every search. In fact you might already use MeSH without noticing it. e.g. if you type anaemia AND marfan syndrome in the search bar, this is translated in appropriate MeSH and keywords (look under Details). It yields only 20 hits, mostly not very relevant, but it is not because of your search. Perhaps a textbook or review about Marfan would be more useful. If somebody with Marfan is strongly anemic I would wonder, whether he/she didn't have a serious bleeding, bc that is the most dangerous thing in Marfan. Thus the question would perhaps be: what is a safe Hb in Marfan? Google Scholar might also be useful, because you can search in the full text, not only in title and abstract. Generally speaking, I always look under Details whether terms are translated correctly. Most times I also go to the MeSH-database, to check whether the most suitable MeSH are used. I use MeSH together with textwords. Usually I don't apply limits or MESH subheadings, but use clinical queries and/or (other) search filters. Would you like me to show some searches in separate posts? @Dear Bianca. I am as concerned as you are that the the changes will be suddenly introduced. Asked people on twitter whether they had more info on when to exactly expect the changes. Nobody could tell. Probably the wisest thing is to anticipate and adapt your courses and instructions as if the advance search was already implemented. It will save you some nasty surprises. @anonymous user. Indeed, the Single Citation Matcher is now more or less included in the advanced search (2nd block).

The web-2.0 EBM medicine split

2009-03-26T17:27:08.480+01:00

The web-2.0 EBM medicine split (1) introduction into a short series (2009/01/04/) This post could have been the 2nd in this series,

that inspired me to start this

2009-03-24T02:24:17.721+01:00

that inspired me to start this blog.” Which clearly refers to the comment of @sandnsurf to the blogpost “What I learned in 2008 (about Web 2.0)“: “the most important thing is that you are actually a tree in this ecosystem, you are out there

A librarian trained in Evidenc

2009-02-24T20:39:44.736+01:00

A librarian trained in Evidence Based Medicine now writes about the split of EBM and Medicine 2.0.

I really enjoyed this post. As

2009-02-19T17:28:35.799+01:00

I really enjoyed this post. As Sandnsurf put it, I have been a mushroom in the dark. Your post has energized me to start a blog of my own. I’ll let you know when it is up and running. Thanks again for all of the great posts! Alisha Miles, MLIS

Thanks everyone who responded

2009-02-03T13:00:44.839+01:00

Thanks everyone who responded to this post (here and on twitter). @sandnsurf You're not only a brilliant med and blogger, but you have also an unmistakable sense of humor. The idea of mushrooms made me laugh out loud. Yes there are many mushrooms around aren't there? Thanks for the positive support! @dee Niets hoeft inderdaad, maar wil je optimaal gebruik maken van web 2.0 tools dan moet je er toch tijd in stoppen. Wat heb je aan een RSS die je niet meer leest omdat je je op teveel abonneert? Als je eenmaal trouwe lezers hebt "verplicht" je je in zekere zin tot het met enige regelmaat maken van goede berichten. Ik vond de metafoor van sandnsurf wel heel erg toepasselijk. Ik zoek de ecologische balans op het ogenblik. Wees gerust, ik doe niets tegen mijn zin.

Een mooie post Laika. Wat mis

2009-02-02T19:54:48.875+01:00

Een mooie post Laika. Wat misschien ook van belang is: je hoeft niet zus of zoveel te bloggen of te Twitteren: waarom zou je? Er is geen verplichting tot immers. Beste is het om het naar behoefte te doen, en dat kan de ene keer meer en de andere keer minder zijn. Soms is even pas-op-de-plaats en verwerken ook wel een goed idee, dan welt vanzelf wel op hoe je verder gaat. Gun jezelf wat tijd: je hebt al zo'n steile leercurve :-) !

I learned in 2008 (about Web 2

2009-02-02T19:54:28.875+01:00

I learned in 2008 (about Web 2.0) from @laikas http://laikaspoetnik.wordpress.com/2009/02/02/what-i-learned-in-2008-about-web-20/ « előző | következő » Bertalan Meskó — 2009. 02. 02.

Nice post Laika.Thanks.

2009-02-02T19:54:18.875+01:00

Nice post Laika.Thanks.

Very interesting and edifying!

2009-02-02T19:54:08.875+01:00

Very interesting and edifying!

Great summary – web2.0 jedi A

2009-02-02T19:53:48.875+01:00

Great summary – web2.0 jedi A careful balance of light, water and nutrients is essential – but the most important thing is that you are actually a tree in this ecosystem, you are out there experimenting, thinking and trying to drive the revolution further. Most of my colleagues are still mushrooms… Looking forward to seeing your canopy develop Sandnsurf

@Medaholic Well lets first wa

2009-01-18T23:52:05.878+01:00

@Medaholic Well lets first wait till there is a web 3.0 and EBM and web 2.0 mingle insofar as this is possible. I do not believe that patient stories can provide objective evidence that is as rigid as the evidence obtained from good clinical trials, except for instance in case of adverse effects which appear to have an obvious cause (see for instance my post http://is.gd/4DGK and the post of Dr Val "Consumer-Generated Clinical Trials? Research Minus Science = Gossip" http://is.gd/anlL). I do believe however, in a patient-centered approach. In the intracranial example it is already evident that there is no benefit. Why test any further individuals to find out if a specific condition would make any difference? Of note, lowering the intracranial pressure by corticosteroids did not prevent mortality.In other words, beware of surrogate markers. @Creaky You raise an important issue: "Why isn't there ONE guideline on a particular subject?" Recommendations may always differ per country and even per specialty, but the evidence itself may not (only whether it is applicable may be dependent on other factors). Therefore, there should be one basic guideline containing all the evidence and this should be freely available. A kind of basic 'fact'book. Although Dutch, I do search www.guideline.gov and other English language databases. In fact we nearly always start with searching for aggregate evidence.Not to blindly follow the protocol, but to find the evidence there is and look whether it is applicable.

Laika, Thanks for a great disc

2009-01-18T23:51:45.878+01:00

Laika, Thanks for a great discussion of these factors, which health science librarians struggle with when answering reference queries. An interesting reference question I had recently was from a third year medical student who wanted to know which source would provide her with “all the standards of care” she needed during her clinical clerkship. This is a difficult source to point to – as “it” doesn’t exist in one place (i.e. Medline, Cochrane Library, Scopus, Up to Date, etc) nor would there be complete (or enduring) consensus on such clinical guidelines or standards among physicians at different levels of clinical experience (or even from hospital to hospital, or country). Hers was a question I could not answer fully. I recommended that she look at http://guidelines.gov, professional societies such as American College of Cardiology or American Heart Association, etc. and do a thorough search on Medline. However, she is an American. Those from Canada, Netherlands, UK or anywhere else would be looking at different sources for similar (but not the same) standards. To hand her one URL to locate universal standards of clinical practice for (example) inoperable pancreatic cancer? That I (and many of us!) would love to get our hands on such a source. Your blog is great, thank you. Creaky

Sarah’s reply made me think ab

2009-01-18T23:51:35.878+01:00

Sarah’s reply made me think about the sites we can use to access EBM: http://wishfulthinkinginmedicaleducation.blogspot.com/2009/01/accessing-evidence-based-medicine.html

Here’s my reflection on your p

2009-01-18T23:51:25.878+01:00

Here’s my reflection on your post: http://sarah-stewart.blogspot.com/2009/01/evidence-based-medicine-ebm-vs-web-20.html

Perhaps Web 2.0 and EBM will c

2009-01-18T23:51:15.878+01:00

Perhaps Web 2.0 and EBM will combine in the near future to become EBM 3.0Where patient stories provide objective evidence. Our evidence can become more precise with more information. For example, in your intracrnial pressure example, we will be able to better distinguish the different types of pressures and provide the right treatment in the right case, all based on the collective knowledge of web 2.0.

Thank you all for your thought

2009-01-18T23:51:02.544+01:00

Thank you all for your thoughts and input. I didn’t expect to stir up so much discussion by a simple meandering. You brought up so many points, I think I need to address them in a separate post.In my view bringing in a little more web 2.0 in EBM is easy, but really integrating the two will be far more difficult because the inherent differences. The first thing that has to be done is to get a clear view of what web 2.0 and EBM exactly stand for. There is a lot of prejudice about the two.As planned my first one or two posts will be about the often wrong interpretation of EBM -by medicine 2.0 and medicine 1.0 sources/people (see Ravi’s remark). An important next step is to find out why there are practical gaps in EBM, as Anne Marie puts it: why does EBM seemingly fails? Is it too time-consuming (dr. Shock) or not really transparant (anon, sarah), or not always practical? I would like to hear your thoughts about that. I think it would be good to go into the limitations of web 2.0 as well. And then the integration, EBM2.0, what can we achieve, how should it be done?Did I miss something? Do you have examples yourselves, thoughts? Please let me know. Love the discussion, Jacqueline.

Laika’s MedLibLog, and if you

2009-01-18T23:50:55.878+01:00

Laika’s MedLibLog, and if you need proof why I chose that one, check her latest post on the difference between web 1.0 and 2.0 regarding

The Web 2.0-EBM Medicine split

2009-01-18T23:50:45.878+01:00

The Web 2.0-EBM Medicine split. [1] Introduction into a short series. | Laika’s MedLibLog

tip this week – check out The

2009-01-18T23:50:32.544+01:00

tip this week – check out The Web 2.0-EBM Medicine split. [1] Introduction into a short series at Laika’s MedLibLog for an enlightening look at the tensions and differences between

http://laikaspoetnik.wordpress.com/2009/01/04/the-web-20-ebm-medicine-split-1-introduction-into-a-sh...

Nice comparision. As the Found

2009-01-18T23:50:15.878+01:00

Nice comparision. As the Founder of Tx Xchange, http://www.txxchange.com, patient relationship management (PRM) software for the rehab industry, I experience the conflict between EBM and Web 2.0 on a consistent basis.We’re Web 2.0 leaning, but working to integrate EBP. A balance can be found.

I’m intrigued too! Thank you f

2009-01-18T23:50:05.878+01:00

I’m intrigued too! Thank you for starting the posts. I have not seen a conflict, maybe because I am learning about web 2.0 tools. To my mind, web 2.0 might highlight where there are pratcical gaps in EBM. Even better it might facilitate ways that we can organise research better to help solve these problems.

Very interesting post. I am no

2009-01-18T23:49:55.878+01:00

Very interesting post. I am not sure I agree that EBM is transparent. In my experience practitioners choose the research that suits their particular position, and decision-making can only be as good as the research it is based on. I believe web 2.0 makes EBM a lot more transparent than it currently is and I welcome the collaborative and open aspects of web 2.0 into health care practice. Thanks.

Jacqueline,Very insightful pos

2009-01-18T23:49:42.544+01:00

Jacqueline,Very insightful post. I agree that integrating EBM and Medicine 2.0 is important and difficult task. When we have both working together, the people and patient centered conversations in Medicine and Health 2.0 will no longer be limited to personal stories and anecdotes but will become data-centric repositories of personalized medical information and learning.Regards,Ravi Sohal remakinghealthcare

The Web 2.0-EBM Medicine split

2009-01-18T23:49:35.878+01:00

The Web 2.0-EBM Medicine split. [1] Introduction into a short series. (Laika’s MedLibBlog): A unique comparision of web 1.0 and web 2.0 in medicine.

Based on your list of characte

2009-01-18T23:49:25.878+01:00

Based on your list of characteristics, it’s easy to see why EBM has run into such trouble. failed, causing objective, transparent, and thorough to fail too. Searching remains crippled by the cost of public access. The result is that centered round the best evidence is often in doubt. Its other characteristics are all negative. Let’s just stop now and try again. EBM 2.0, anyone?

post is the start of a very in

2009-01-18T23:49:15.878+01:00

post is the start of a very interesting series by Laika’s MedLibLog. She is a medical information specialist with experience in both evidence based medicine (EBM) and

Can’t wait for the next post i

2009-01-18T23:48:55.878+01:00

Can’t wait for the next post in this series, very informative. Recently almost finished a new EBM guideline for ECT, can’t web 2.0 medicine make that any easier?;) Kind regards Dr Shock

Pubmed changes at the front do

2009-09-05T02:10:47.968+02:00

Pubmed changes at the front door (2009/04/01/)

been exceptionally busy at wor

2009-08-09T21:27:43.243+02:00

been exceptionally busy at work, we’re beginning to finish up a much needed, much discussed by librarians, redesign of PubMed. We’ve put a ton of user interaction effort into this

Single Citation Matcher will s

2009-08-09T21:27:23.243+02:00

Hello again LaikasI meant to c

2009-08-09T21:27:13.243+02:00

@anne marie. About your first

2009-08-09T21:27:03.243+02:00

@bianca The change will not be

2009-08-09T21:26:53.243+02:00

Do you know when ‘Soon, very s

2009-08-09T21:26:43.243+02:00

OK… I’m trying to think of one

2009-08-09T21:26:33.243+02:00

Anne Marie, I didn’t expect it

2009-08-09T21:26:23.243+02:00

Hello I don’t see what is wron

2009-08-09T21:26:13.243+02:00

think Web 2.0 is incompatible

2009-08-01T06:04:40.612+02:00

Which refers to @sandnsurf’s p

2009-07-30T13:53:36.815+02:00

2.- Spoetnic L. The Web 2.0-EB

2009-07-02T05:58:47.531+02:00

medical student from Hungary,

2009-05-27T08:38:57.268+02:00

think Web 2.0 is incompatible

2009-05-25T12:01:55.968+02:00

@anne marie. MeSH are mostly v

2009-04-13T14:11:53.949+02:00

The web-2.0 EBM medicine split

2009-03-26T17:27:08.480+01:00

The web-2.0 EBM medicine split (1) introduction into a short series (2009/01/04/) This post could have been the 2nd in this series,

that inspired me to start this

2009-03-24T02:24:17.721+01:00

A librarian trained in Evidenc

2009-02-24T20:39:44.736+01:00

A librarian trained in Evidence Based Medicine now writes about the split of EBM and Medicine 2.0.

I really enjoyed this post. As

2009-02-19T17:28:35.799+01:00

Thanks everyone who responded

2009-02-03T13:00:44.839+01:00

Een mooie post Laika. Wat mis

2009-02-02T19:54:48.875+01:00

I learned in 2008 (about Web 2

2009-02-02T19:54:28.875+01:00

I learned in 2008 (about Web 2.0) from @laikas http://laikaspoetnik.wordpress.com/2009/02/02/what-i-learned-in-2008-about-web-20/ « előző | következő » Bertalan Meskó — 2009. 02. 02.

Nice post Laika.Thanks.

2009-02-02T19:54:18.875+01:00

Nice post Laika.Thanks.

Very interesting and edifying!

2009-02-02T19:54:08.875+01:00

Very interesting and edifying!

Great summary – web2.0 jedi A

2009-02-02T19:53:48.875+01:00

@Medaholic Well lets first wa

2009-01-18T23:52:05.878+01:00

Laika, Thanks for a great disc

2009-01-18T23:51:45.878+01:00

Sarah’s reply made me think ab

2009-01-18T23:51:35.878+01:00

Sarah’s reply made me think about the sites we can use to access EBM: http://wishfulthinkinginmedicaleducation.blogspot.com/2009/01/accessing-evidence-based-medicine.html

Here’s my reflection on your p

2009-01-18T23:51:25.878+01:00

Here’s my reflection on your post: http://sarah-stewart.blogspot.com/2009/01/evidence-based-medicine-ebm-vs-web-20.html

Perhaps Web 2.0 and EBM will c

2009-01-18T23:51:15.878+01:00

Thank you all for your thought

2009-01-18T23:51:02.544+01:00

Laika’s MedLibLog, and if you

2009-01-18T23:50:55.878+01:00

Laika’s MedLibLog, and if you need proof why I chose that one, check her latest post on the difference between web 1.0 and 2.0 regarding

The Web 2.0-EBM Medicine split

2009-01-18T23:50:45.878+01:00

The Web 2.0-EBM Medicine split. [1] Introduction into a short series. | Laika’s MedLibLog

tip this week – check out The

2009-01-18T23:50:32.544+01:00

tip this week – check out The Web 2.0-EBM Medicine split. [1] Introduction into a short series at Laika’s MedLibLog for an enlightening look at the tensions and differences between

http://laikaspoetnik.wordpress.com/2009/01/04/the-web-20-ebm-medicine-split-1-introduction-into-a-sh...

Nice comparision. As the Found

2009-01-18T23:50:15.878+01:00

I’m intrigued too! Thank you f

2009-01-18T23:50:05.878+01:00

Very interesting post. I am no

2009-01-18T23:49:55.878+01:00

Jacqueline,Very insightful pos

2009-01-18T23:49:42.544+01:00

The Web 2.0-EBM Medicine split

2009-01-18T23:49:35.878+01:00

The Web 2.0-EBM Medicine split. [1] Introduction into a short series. (Laika’s MedLibBlog): A unique comparision of web 1.0 and web 2.0 in medicine.

Based on your list of characte

2009-01-18T23:49:25.878+01:00

post is the start of a very in

2009-01-18T23:49:15.878+01:00

post is the start of a very interesting series by Laika’s MedLibLog. She is a medical information specialist with experience in both evidence based medicine (EBM) and

Can’t wait for the next post i

2009-01-18T23:48:55.878+01:00

Can’t wait for the next post in this series, very informative. Recently almost finished a new EBM guideline for ECT, can’t web 2.0 medicine make that any easier?;) Kind regards Dr Shock