It only used to happen with the really long search strategies, but today a 10 line search broke it. The strangest was when it happened while editing in the saved searches screen. If we can't edit live, or via saved searches (reliably), it starts to become a big problem. I'm hoping its an anomaly.
#Ovid#SystematicReview search today & every time we "edited" a line and tried to re-run it, it would timeout. This even happened when we worked from the 'saved searches' screen. I've never had this happen before. 😖😢
As I update slides for a SR workshop, I am reminded how much I love this table - for explaining the differences between #SystematicReviews#ScopingReviews#MappingReviewsdoi.org/10.1016/j.jc...).
And by that last sentence, I meant, why not SEARCH with keywords across all records rather than limiting that approach to only the search of the not-Medline segment.
Indeed - a MeSH only search strategy would exclude many non-indexed records. And that is a problem. But the solution/approach to continue to search MeSH only for Medline-indexed, and only use other fields for the remaining 10% is curious. Why not just apply keywords to ALL records 🤔
As an aside - I do wish researchers working on search-related projects would include information retrieval experts (i.e. #librarians or information specialists), as we have lots of expertise to contribute on such a project.
The #Cochranetraining.cochrane.org/handbook/cur...#SysRev search strategies would show that a MeSH only search is not the norm.
A simpler and yet more comprehensive approach would be to use a single search strategy that includes a robust set of textwords for each concept alongside the MeSH (i.e. what #librarians#Cochrane Handbook). Such an approach would cover all bases in PubMed.
This is new to me. It is my understanding that a comprehensive (#systematic) search requires using both controlled vocab ORed with keywords (textwords) for each concept. As librarians, we know that this is to overcome indexing issues (which occur even in the Medline-indexed set).