Trip Database Blog

A good post from Alf at the HubLog (Click here).

I’m not sure if this is a new feature but it’ll be useful. In the past I’ve highlighted the issue of extra long URLs needed for PubMed and a solution from pmid.us (click here). Well it now appears that this shortened URL format is available directly from PubMed.

This means that the following citation:

Meats E, Brassey J, Heneghan C, Glasziou P.
Using the Turning Research Into Practice (TRIP) database: how do clinicians really search?
J Med Libr Assoc. 2007 Apr;95(2):156-63.
PMID: 17443248

can have this URL http://view.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17443248, previously it would have been http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17443248

I have to admit to not knowing the strict differences between a podcast, vodcast, webcast etc. I’m thinking it’s not that big a deal! It appears that ‘podcast’ encompasses both sound and vision. Or as wikipedia puts it (click here):

“A podcast is a digital media file, or a series of such files, that is distributed over the Internet using syndication feeds for playback on portable media players and personal computers.”

As part of the ‘More’ section in the new TRIP (launch early October) we’ll be adding podcasts alongside all our wiki material, clinical calculators and a number of other ‘bits and bobs’.

I approached the acquisition of podcast content with some nervousness as I rarely (or should that be never) use them myself, so lacked ‘appropriate’ experience. There are a number of sites out there giving pointers to podcasts (e.g. krafty librarian and UBC Health Library Wiki) and they have proved invaluable. I still feel that I have much to learn about the podcast ‘landscape’ but have been impressed with much of what I have seen. For the time being I appear to have exhausted the available** content and have 2215 podcasts ready for searching come the launch of the new TRIP. These 2215 are all clinical podcasts aimed at clinicians (as opposed to patients).

Findability is a concern with these podcasts, as, typically, the only available information is the title. I’m not sure how to get round that. But as mentioned above with time the experience will come and solutions will present themselves.

** When I say available, I mean content that I have been able to locate via the various podcast lists and also from various blogs I ‘frequent’. If the inclusion of podcasts proves popular I’m hoping people will send me links to other clinical podcasts.

As we wait for the new site to be finished off (release date early October) we’ve been testing some new features. For those of you interested feel free to follow this link. If you click on the first result you’ll see what we’ve been up to!

Note: It’s been given the publication ‘Special Interest’ for convenience!

We’re quite pleased with how it works/integrates.

The subject of this post is a quote taken from feedback on the NLH Q&A Service, which we (TRIP) run. I like to review the comments every now and then and two more are shown below:

“I cannot speak too highly of the service – thanks very much. It is extremely valuable to have access to the skills needed to search through complex electronic evidence sources

“This is a truly excellent service, I am amazed that neither I nor any of my partners knew anything about it. I discovered it as a result of a Google search! Needs to be more widely publicised, or maybe I’m in a minority? I will go straight to this site in future with questions of this nature. It’s much better than some of the commercial/sponsored sites that are being publicised. Thank you for the answers you provided”

Why I’m pleased by comments like this is that they come from real doctors who see real patients.

I came across this interesting article When Search Engines Become Answer Engines which highlights the move by users of “dipping a toe into websites rather than truly “visiting” them. Using search engines as their Web interface, people simply grab query-related nuggets from sites, but don’t engage with the sites themselves.”

It later reports:

“For search engines, becoming the user interface to the Web’s embarrassment of riches is good news. It’s also good news for users, who can find answers by visiting a few search hits rather than enduring the obscure design and poor navigation found on many sites.”

It also states that using the count of unique users to a site is fairly pointless as most people will probably sampling a small part of the site to see if they get an answer, rather than engaging with the site. Loyal users are a much more useful metric.

I rather like this article, I think because it points to a rosy future for TRIP. We are increasingly engaged with trying to serve answers to users. This stems from having good content served well to users, introducing innovations such as conclusion previews (meaning users can get answers from our site) and the fact that we have a large, loyal following – over 70% of our users either bookmark us or directly type in our URL.

The article then links out to another report using eyetracking technology.

We’ve just answered the question “When is the earliest a patient safe to fly following a diagnosis of tuberculosis?” (click here to view answer). Having just come back – via a plane – from holiday it hadn’t entered my mind the recirculation of ‘germs’. Fortunately, in the case of TB, the chances of catching TB appear fairly remote. So back to worrying about turbulence!

http://pmid.us/17678212

An interesting blog post about Dr Microsoft and Dr Google click here.