GoPubmed is a lovely and powerful second party search for Pubmed. The Go is for gene ontology, but since the search does not seem to focus only on genetic research, I think it also just made for a nice name. The color scheme and display are also easy on the eyes, highly intuitive and attractive.
What does it do that makes it stand out? I like the emphasis on "hot topics" which show top authors, journals, cities and countries active in researching and publishing in the area of my search terms. To see them, click on the statistics tab. This is a garden of Eden for the curious and quite valuable for those who need to connect with others doing similar research.
I also love the what, who where and when menus on the left. These provide ways to sort and examine search results. They also expand and contract, hiding the long lists of links. I was pleased that I didn't have to read the advanced help to understand the icons, they made sense to me and had mouseover information, too. Thse things build confidence and goodwill quickly, so that I felt I could "trust" this site to perform a useful search and not waste my time.
I'll admit I was confusted by the pertinent author profile that appears before the first search result, with buttons to contact or correct. It took me a while to understand that this was the top publishing author and that I could either contact them or correct the information provided. Monday morning may be the culprit but I thought it was a test.... I am curious abut how the authors feel about this. My search term, obsessive compulsive, was broad, so this author must be quite the heavy hitter.
As with Mednar, there are customizable features I have not yet explored and others that I did not see yet. I will use this tool and I would share it with colleagues or friends and family, especially those already using Pubmed.
Though it makes Pubmed more friendly, I would not share it with a patron. Here is why. A patron needs to understand the purpose and scope of Medline before they even begin to look around. This alone takes some description and discussion. Once that is accomplished, I prefer to give them a brief introduction to Pubmed and observe their reaction and comfort level with it. From there, I may step them back to MedLinePlus and point out the journal and research links or set them loose with assurances that we are nearby if they have questions. I believe that providing a solid grounding in the basic resources is the best assistance I can provide. So again, though I am confident that GoPubmed is a great search tool, I would still not share it with a patron or consumer until they had the proper foundation and understanding of Medline.
3 comments:
It is true ... people should use first Pubmed and later GoPubMed in order to compare both tools. Most important is to communicate the semantic vs. the key word approach though.
Thanks for your review!
Good point, Michael, and one that underscores the difference between a knowledgeable Medline searcher and the average consumer health information patron. GoPubmed is outstanding! Pilgrimtinker
Hello, Pilgrimtinker and Michael. Another thoughtful, edifying review of an important health-related search engine. Thank you so much for embarking on this series, Pilgrimtinker. I am sure it will become widely read by medical librarians and clinical researchers.
I agree with you that there here, “As with Mednar, there are customizable features I have not yet explored and others that I did not see yet.” There are two rich tools and make for a powerful one, two, three punch used with PubMed. Mednar is especially valuable in searching resources that neither GoPubMed nor PubMed search and GoPubMed is, as you say, quite valuable for those who want to contact researchers.
One especial strength of your series, Pilgrimtinker, is your employment of your experience as a consumer health librarian to indicate which tools you would introduce non-clinicians to and which you would not and why. That is very helpful for those of us trying to serve the general public better.
Also, it would be very helpful if you could give a thumbnail of what Michael means by the “semantic vs. the key word approach.” “Semantic” can be a scary word, but you excel at elucidating difficult concepts and any light you could shed on them would be much appreciated. Maybe you could compare GoPubMed and Mednar in that respect.
Keep up the good work!
Post a Comment