A ‘best match’ for common search commands: a comparison of searching (CDSR and CENTRAL) via

1. A ‘best match’ for common search commands: a comparison of searching (CDSR and CENTRAL) via Wiley and Ovid HLG Conference, July 2012 Jenny Craven, Information Specialist, NICE Jenny Kendrick, Information Specialist, NICE

2. Clinical guidelines, outcome frameworks and quality standards Advice on new and existing treatments NICE and NHS Evidence Evidence – guidance – shared learning Health Comprehensive evidence service promotion and disease prevention

3. Associate Director, 23 Information Professionals, and an Administrator Institute-wide corporate information services Guidance Information Services Professional expertise to enable access to high quality information to support the development of guidance Tailored information support for the different Centres and Directorates within NICE

4. Purpose of the project • As a result of experiencing some issues with the Cochrane Library via Wiley in 2010/11 a project group was set up to look into the differences of searching: – Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) – Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) – between the Wiley and Ovid search interfaces

5. Aims of the project • To compare search commands and functionality of Wiley and Ovid, including identifying the ‘best match’ for common search commands between the different interfaces. • To identify any discrepancies in the way comparative search commands are executed across the two interfaces. • To investigate and explain any discrepancies identified. • To compare the performance. • To investigate any other issues identified during the project.

6. Evidence in Literature • Inconsistent search commands across various interfaces... – Differences in the way stop words are searched and the use of adjacency (Feinglos, 1983) – Limits and Field searches can differ between interfaces (De Groote, 2000, Allison, 2006) – Text word searches (e.g. ‘All text’ and TX) can produce different numbers of results. (Younger & Boddy, 2008) – Some interfaces assume truncation, some require a wildcard (*) (Younger & Boddy, 2008) • Learning the ‘intricacies of individual interfaces and databases is time-consuming’ (Boddy & Younger, 2009)

7. Methods • Detailed cross comparisons were undertaken on the following search functions: - - - - Truncation Proximity Operators MeSH terms including exploded MeSH terms; Free text/All fields, including free text (title, abstract, keyword search) and free text (title, abstract only)

8. Methods • Appropriate terms were selected to explore each of the search functions. • Terms were selected from: – existing strategies from Interventional Procedures (IP) and Guideline Review (GR) searches – and, for practical reasons, terms were selected that did not retrieve a large number of results (ideally less than 200 results, although this was not always possible)

9. Methods • Searches were recorded using a Word table, listing the test terms, interface and database, syntax applied, and the number of results. • If a large number of results were retrieved, these were imported into Reference Manager to identify unique records for closer inspection in the appropriate database. • Where the numbers retrieved were low, records could be inspected directly from within the database.

10. Search syntax and functionality Database Truncation Proximity operators MeSH Exp MeSH Free text - All fields Free text - ti, ab, kw/hw Free text – ti,ab OVID CENTRAL * adj3 MeSH/ Exp MeSH/ - ti, ab, hw ti, ab or tw1 OVID CDSR * adj3 kw Include all terms as kw and Or/ together tw2 ti, ab, kw ti,ab2 Wiley - Cochrane Library * Near or lower proximity e.g. Near/4 MeSH/4 MesH explode all trees Search All3 text (i.e. term with no suffix) ti, ab, kw – includes ‘Plain Language Summary’ ti,ab 1 Preferred free text searching mode for Ovid CENTRAL 2 Preferred free text searching mode for Ovid CDSR (note that .tw is equivalent to full text searching in CDSR) 3 Preferred free text searching mode for Wiley 4 Note: in Wiley check tags (e.g. adult, child, male, female) need to be searched for using .kw

11. Truncation & Proximity Operators • Truncation - Use * in both Ovid and Wiley • Proximity Operators – The proximity operators perform differently in Ovid and Wiley. – In Ovid Adj3 refers to three words between search terms and stop words are not included in the count. – In Wiley Near/3 refers to the first search term plus the next two words, and all words are counted (including stop words). – Either use Near in Wiley, or if too many records are retrieved, use a lower proximity e.g. Near/4.

12. MeSH terms • MeSH terms - CDSR – In Ovid use .kw – in Wiley use MeSH • MeSH Terms - CENTRAL – Use MeSH/ in Ovid and Wiley

13. Exploded MeSH • Exploded MeSH – CDSR - In Wiley use ‘MeSH explode all trees - In Ovid use .kw and include the main MeSH heading plus the narrower terms Or’d together, for example: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Labor Onset.kw Labor Stage, First.kw Labor Stage, Second.kw Labor Stage, Third.kw OR/1-4 MeSH descriptor Labor Onset explode all trees • Exploded MeSH – CENTRAL - Use exp MeSH/ in Ovid and Wiley.

14. Free text/All fields • Free text/ All fields - CDSR – Use .tw in OVID – no suffix (all text) in Wiley. – Small differences in retrieval as ‘evidence tables’ and ‘reference list’ text included in a Wiley ‘all text’ search but not included in an Ovid .tw search.

15. Free text/All fields • Free text/ All fields - CENTRAL – In Wiley use no suffix (all text) – There is no option for performing an ‘all text’ search in Ovid CENTRAL.

16. Free text (ti,ab,kw) • Free text (title, abstract, keyword search) - CDSR – Use .ti, ab, kw in both OVID and Wiley. – Small differences in retrieval as ‘plain language summary’ field included in a Wiley .ti,ab,kw search, but not in Ovid.

17. Free text (ti,ab,kw) • Free text (title, abstract, keyword search) - CENTRAL – Use .ti, ab, kw in Wiley. – Use .ti, ab, hw in OVID – The qualifier .hw is used in OVID to ensure retrieval of CENTRAL records indexed with MeSH and non- MESH subject headings (i.e. EMTREE terms). A .kw search in Ovid will only retrieve records indexed with non-MeSH headings.

18. Free text (ti,ab) • Free text (title, abstract) – CDSR – In Ovid and Wiley use .ti,ab. • Free text (title, abstract) – CENTRAL – in Wiley use .ti,ab. – In Ovid use .ti,ab or .tw

19. Other Issues • Limits (date and language) • Exporting records • Multifile searching • Currency

20. Summary and conclusions • In summary, it is possible to successfully search CDSR and CENTRAL via Ovid and Wiley. • Advantages of Ovid: – Cross-search the CDSR and CENTRAL databases with MEDLINE and EMBASE (multifile searching), and being able to de-duplicate within Ovid. • Disadvantages of Ovid: – The study experienced a time delay between the updating of CDSR and CENTRAL in Ovid.

21. Summary and conclusions • Advantages of Wiley: – Cross-search the CDSR and CENTRAL databases with the CRD databases – Only having to create a single strategy to search CDSR and CENTRAL instead of multiple strategies. • Disadvantage of Wiley: – Some issues are still being experienced – such as timing out during searches, loss of searches, and displaying incorrect search results

22. Final comment • It should also be noted that there will always be differences in the number of records retrieved by the two interfaces – execution of MeSH headings (CDSR) – fields included in an ‘all text ‘search (CDSR) – proximity operators (CDSR and CENTRAL) • The search syntax presented here and in the report simply represent the ‘best match’ between the Ovid and the Wiley interfaces.

23. Free/Quick plug! • Final Report - Cochrane project: a comparison of searching CDSR and CENTRAL via Wiley and Ovid, copies available on request • Craven, J., Kendrick, J., and Boynton, J. (2011) Cochrane project: a comparison of searching CDSR and CENTRAL via Wiley and Ovid. Health libraries Group Newsletter, December http://www.cilip.org.uk/get-involved/special-interest- groups/health/pages/newsletter.aspx • Detailed article is planned for the near future

24. References • Allison, M. (2006) Comparison of CINAHL via EBSCOhost, Ovid, and Pro Quest. Journal of Electronic Resources in Medial Libraries, vol 3(1) pp31-50. • Craven, J., Kendrick, J., and Boynton, J. (2011) Cochrane project: a comparison of searching CDSR and CENTRAL via Wiley and Ovid. Health libraries Group Newsletter, December http://www.cilip.org.uk/get-involved/special- interest-groups/health/pages/newsletter.aspx • De Groote, S. L (2000) PubMed, Internet Grateful Med, and Ovid: a comparison of Three MEDLINE Internet Interfaces. Medical Reference Services Quarterly, Vol 19(4) pp1-13.

25. References • Feinglos, S.J. (1983) MEDLINE at BRS, DIALOG, and NLM: Is There a Choice? Bulletin of the Medical Library Association. 71(1) January. • Younger, P. and Boddy, K. (2008) When is a search not a search? A comparison of searching the AMED complementary health database via EBSCOhost, OVID and DIALOG. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 26, pp.126–135 • Younger, P. and Boddy, K. (2009) What a difference an interface makes: just how reliable are your search results. Focus on alternative and complimentary therapies Vol 14(1) March, pp5-7.

26. Thank You Any Questions? Jenny.craven@nice.org.uk Jenny.kendrick@nice.org,uk