MEDLIB-L Archives

June 1999, Week 3


Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Karen Dillon <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Karen Dillon <[log in to unmask]>
Fri, 18 Jun 1999 15:02:10 -0400
text/plain (75 lines)
I have been using Advanced PubMed for over two years and OVID online for
1.5.  We provide systemwide access to OVID - BTW, at a tremendous cost -
because we are a teaching hospital system that wanted a database consistent
with academic health science libraries.  There was also a "certain amount of
resistance" because of all the discussion about PubMed in the wake of
Elhill's demise.

I use PubMed when I have a vague or very complex request.  I have found
that I can "tease out" what I need more easily than through the structured,
more tedious (and slow) OVID screens.  In the past several weeks, there was
another excellent step forward with HealthStar' inclusion in PubMed.

PubMed does need improvement, i.e. would love to be able to email search
results more easily than copy/paste to my Groupwise message.   Would also
like to be able to specify the number of related articles results displayed
at one time instead of 20 per page.

Whether we like it or not, it was time for the old technology to go to
accomodate the mass movement to Web-based, graphical formats.   After 30+
years in the profession, I still marvel at the tools we now have  - many at
no cost (excluding computer and Web access, that is...)

Karen W. Dillon
System Librarian
Carilion Health System
[log in to unmask]

>>> "Wilson, Pat" <[log in to unmask]> 06/18 1:49 PM >>>
Boy, I'd like to live in the world some of you live in.  No problem, just
dump PubMed, etc. and go to Ovid or Dialog or one of the other EXPENSIVE
products.  My guess is that by far the greatest majority of us live in the
poor as church mice world of making do with the least expensive product or
not making do at all.  I too wish PubMed had some of the features of
but until it does that's what we're stuck with.  For most of the searching
we do it is okay, emphasis on okay.  They have made improvements and
hopefully will continue to do so.

> ----------
> From:         Vislava Tylman[SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Reply To:     Vislava Tylman
> Sent:         Friday, June 18, 1999 12:14 PM
> To:   [log in to unmask]
> Subject:      Re: Demise of Medlars access?
> Hi Elhill Veterans!
> I think the last suggestion is a good one. Why to invest money (our
> making changes and improvements in PubMed/Entrez software which was
> designed for searching? Why not to use one of the existing search
> ISI did it and as far as I know, is not planning to spend money for
> improvements in their old software, adopted OVID instead.
> IGM was  great with Elhill software, you could use Elhill commands, but
> lost this option when IGM was transferred to the PubMed software.
> Is text word searching really the same as mapping? Can mapping replace
> text word searching? I don't think so!
> Well, Elhill Veterans & Lovers,  we are disappearing species.
> As I was told, the new generation of librarians will be learning about
> PuBMed and using PubMed, and will be very happy with the parking lot!
> Never heard about paradise! :-)
> teal, I love it!
> No, I am not against PubMed, some of the features are great, and free
> access is not bad, but the search engine is poor and far away from what
> professional searchers need.
> Have a great weekend everybody!
> Vislava