User Comment on Search Analysis of Search and Results


1.  I couldn't find article.  (012602)
Searcher did not go beyond the current MEDLINE file to find the
specific citation so missed it.  Searcher did not make use of
MeSH for the topic-used only a text word (hispanic) rather
than hispanic americans.  Missed one subject area of inquiry.

2.  I didn't find the paper I was looking for.  The paper was too
recent--it may have been in press.  (013801)
Search was fine, but paper the searcher was seeking was probably
too recent to be in MEDLINE.

3.  There was nothing current or anything that would pinpoint a
direction we should be going in, for this retinal binding
protein.  If it's being published, it's being covered in journals
not covered by the ELHILL system.  (013901)
Searcher took a very narrow approach to his search and ultimately
reached the wrong conclusions about the availability of
information in the file.  He used too few MeSH trees.  He should
have looked at vitamin a in addition to vitamin a deficiency. 
Interview indicates that he said he did a lot more searching than
the log reflects. 

4.  I got 30 articles on adolescents as far as the immune system
being disrupted that were not what I wanted.  I found no new
sources that had any useful information that I needed.  (021202)
The searcher missed finding a whole body of citations in his
search because he did not use the MeSH tree pertaining to
adolescence.  He did not use MeSH to narrow his search to
psychological issues.  The transaction log shows a lack of
knowledge of MeSH.

5.  I got information that was totally irrelevant.  (021203)
Searcher ultimately found the correct MeSH heading and did a good
search.  Searcher wished that Grateful Med had told him that cat
scratch had to be entered as a hyphenated word.

6.  I got too much animal work.  I got so much I really got
nothing--there were too many irrelevant articles to review. 
(036401)
Searcher did an effective search.  One category of literature
might have been omitted from his search due to his strategy
(microbodies), but the search turned out fine.

7.  I couldn't get the information I wanted, with the
restrictions I put in.  (036402)
Search was very simplistic.  User claimed that he used MeSH when
the log shows he did not.  Not using MeSH was a serious problem.

8.  No breakdown that separated this condition from general
ventricular tachycardia.  Abstracts only mentioned Torsade de
Pointes even though I specifically searched by MeSH heading
Torsade de Pointes.  (039301)
Searcher used a term that was cross-referenced to another broader
term and retrieved many articles that were not related to his
term specifically.  The system did not tell him that his
term was being mapped to a broader term.  (Torsade de Pointes is
a 'see' reference to tachycardia).

9.  I never found article I was looking for.  (042202)
This was a good search.  Could be that MEDLARS didn't index the
journal.  Interviewer should have probed for the specifics of the
sought-after article.

10.  Fellow found out later from the transplant surgeons that the
literature he wanted was in transplantation proceedings.  He
found no evidence of relationship to Epstein-Barr.  (060402)
Searcher was too narrow in his approach to the search and missed
retrieving potentially relevant materials.  He did not explode
the lymphoma tree and thus lost a number of references.  He was
inconsistent in entering the text words he selected when
searching across files.

11.  None of the papers were on the mark--we got only papers
where the phenomenon in vitro was studied, instead of in vivo. 
(061303)
Searcher did not use MeSH.  Used one term and then a text word. 
The search was too narrow because of the text word.

12.  This is a rare phenomenon in children.  I could not cite a
similar case for the clinician or tell how a patient was treated. 
(065801)
Interview indicates searcher issued commands that are not shown
in the transaction log. Should have made use of MeSH trees.  Too
narrow a search by just using text words.  Should have searched
CANCERLINE and did not.

13.  I  confirmed I didn't miss any in the past, but I don't know
how many papers have come out more recently.  I couldn't tell how
much I missed.  (067402)
Searcher should have searched the AIDSLINE file but did not. 
MeSH indexing fairly good on the topic but he did not demonstrate
in his search that he knew how to use it.

14.  No information was obtained.  (032703)
The documents related to his topic were indexed in two different
ways in MEDLINE.  To have found both sets he needed to broaden
his search strategy.  He also needed to search CANCERLINE as well
as MEDLINE.  He limited the search to English which got rid of
the one relevant article he found with his search strategy.

15.  I couldn't find literature that provided good peer review of
PCA.  But the topic is so new that I may be on the forefront of
experience.  (044801)
Searcher used the wrong MeSH headings even though he called NLM
to find out the correct ones.  He used the term self medication
instead of the term self administration, which was the one NLM
suggested.

16.  We didn't learn anything more about other diseases with
similar symptoms to measles. (045302)
Searcher's report on the search and the log of the search do not
coincide.  He was looking at the relation between measles and two
other viruses but he only did his search with the term measles
and limited it to the subheading prevention and control. 

17.  I couldn't access what I really wanted.  I have a feeling
there should be much more articles out there that specifically
address my concern.  (062203)
MeSH indexing is widely scattered on this topic.  Did have one
fairly effective strategy but by the vicissitudes of the indexing
he missed some useful articles.  Did search the correct file.

18.  I didn't have my questions answered.  I assume there is
literature that will answer my questions, but I don't know where
it is.  (011402)
Searcher did the search reasonably correctly, but did not look at
the results of one search statement that would have contained the
best information.  Did not explore all facets of his search
request.  Quit searching before exploring all avenues.

19.  It's really hard to believe that nobody's done any articles
on this subject.  Or, it may be that they're classified and
indexed in a different way.  It's frustrating not to be able to
access articles in your own field.  (025903)
The search was fine.  There was nothing in the file to meet the
searcher's needs.

20.  It wasn't relevant information for my needs.  (026702)
Searcher made a fatal error by not truncating the text word to
allow for the possessive form of the term.  Only used one term
instead of exploding an appropriate tree and using that term. 
Should have broadened his strategy.

21.  Grateful Med didn't give me what I was looking for.  I had
to go to BRS Colleague to find the information.  (026901)
There was one MeSH term that would have given the searcher the
desired results, but it was not found nor used.

22.  Only two articles were anywhere near relevant.  It was
unsatisfactory in that I got three that were not related. 
(034002)
Searcher used the wrong search strategy and got incomplete
information.  Also, used the wrong database, CLINPROT.  He
thought CLINPROT would contain citations.  He should
have used MEDLINE and CANCERLINE but only used CLINPROT.

23.  I got nothing fruitful for our purposes.  (037602)
Searcher's interview and the transaction log do not coincide. 
Searcher did not use MeSH properly.  Used text word consultation
not MeSH referrals and consultation.

24.  I didn't find out what I wanted to know about the pathology
of lymphoblastic lymphomas.  (067703)
MeSH indexing is imprecise for the topic.  Searcher needed to be
more creative in alternative strategies to find the material.

25.  None of the articles I found quite addressed the problem I
was trying to solve.  It was not clear whether or not people had
looked for those receptors on cancer cells.  (070502)
Searcher did a reasonable job.  CANCERLINE should have been
searched for the material as well as MEDLINE.

26.  It did not give me the information I wanted.  I realize now
that this was because I was asking for book titles and MEDLINE
was dutifully trying to give me journal articles. (070601)
Searcher needed book titles.  Used MEDLINE instead of CATLINE but
discovered the error himself and redid the search later.