iiinova — where your digital self keeps evolving

SRLibProblems @srlibproblems.bsky.social · 07/03/2026

Odd! When I search (SO ("nurse.com nursing spectrum") in CINAHL, I get 4929 results (image 1). When I add TI "patient violence", it finds 4 articles with the same title (see image of 1 record). If I click one of the regional titles, I can see all issues from 2011-2015 (image 3).

000

SRLibProblems @srlibproblems.bsky.social · 25/03/2025

I have been playing around in the new #EBSCO interface and have thoughts 😅 Has anyone noticed that the symbol used to combine queries in the new EBSCO interface is very similar to that used by #Scopus? And now I'm starting to see more similarities across the two systems 🤔 #Medlibs #ExpertSearching

A screenshot of the "combine queries" symbol in the new EBSCOhost user interface. The symbol looks like 2 lines merging into 1 line with a right facing arrow at the end

Screenshot of the symbol that follows the Combine queries text in Scopus. The symbol looks like 2 lines merging into a single line with a right facing arrow at the end.

260

SRLibProblems @srlibproblems.bsky.social · 05/12/2024

Happy to accept the compliments. Now I know what my cat persona would be 😅 - "a cat in a library chasing a laser pointer." My #BlueSkyRoast #Skybrarian blueskyroast.com/roast/srlibp...

A screenshot of the BlueSky Roast for @srlibproblems.bsky.social.

"SRLibProblems: The #Skybrarian with a Heart of Evidence.
Navigating the labyrinth of systematic reviews with both wit and wisdom. "A delightful combo of librarian seriousness and quirky charm, like a cat in a library chasing a laser pointer.
88.5% Authenticity; 75% Thought Leader; 90% Search Techniques; 95%
Evidence Synthesis"

040

SRLibProblems @srlibproblems.bsky.social · 03/12/2024

Interesting observation! "web of science" = "web for science" because of and for are both stop-words. But it does include "web science" which violates the distance part. So that means that it is searching the phrase without the stop-words (i.e. it ignores them) and phrases with the correct distance

Screenshot showing the following 9 search lines:
1) "web of science".ti. = 363
2) "web for science".ti. = 363
3) "web of* science".ti. = 352
4) "web for* science".ti. = 2
5) "web based science".ti. = 1
6) 3 or 4 or 5 = 355
7) "web science".ti. = 7
8) 3 and 7 = 0
9) 1 and 7 = 7

210

SRLibProblems @srlibproblems.bsky.social · 29/11/2024

In comparison, a normal word space (not non-breaking) looks like a center-aligned dot (period) 👇. The normal space runs fine in Scopus, but non-breaking spaces cause a syntax error that is essentially invisible. It wasted 15 min of my time trying various replacements before figuring this out 😒

130

SRLibProblems @srlibproblems.bsky.social · 29/11/2024

Turns out the type of spacing character used in the second half of the #search was a non-breaking space. You can't tell that it isn't a normal space, until you toggle the view in MS Word to see hidden characters. A non-breaking space character is a small zero symbol. It looks like this 👇.

120

SRLibProblems @srlibproblems.bsky.social · 29/11/2024

Ran into an issue while helping troubleshoot #Scopus today. Half the search strings were running fine, but the other half were not. Scopus would say "syntax error", but what? See screenshot from MS Word below. String looked normal to me. I tried replacing the usual suspects (quotes, brackets, etc)

A screenshot from a MS Word document showing the following search string: (("language" OR linguistic OR "speech") W/2 (skill* OR abilit* OR impair* OR difficult*))

130

SRLibProblems @srlibproblems.bsky.social · 20/11/2024

"review of* review*" = 2 results 😨 Interestingly, on the EBSCOhost interface, you can search a proximity string with the same term on either side (you cannot in Ovid). (review* N1 review*) = 8310 results (this makes sense - it should be higher than version with the stopword) #SystematicSearching

Screenshot of EBSCOhost Medline showing the following searches:
S1 "Review* or review*" - (7,495)
S2 "Review* of review*" - (7,495)
S3 "Review* of* review*" - (2)
S4 (review* N1 review*) - (8,310)
S5 review* - (3,711,223)

120

SRLibProblems @srlibproblems.bsky.social · 19/11/2024

(review* of* review*).tw <-- This retrieves the relevant records, without adding extra noise. Note: you can use the optional wildcard (?, in Ovid) to replace the truncation symbol (*) if the truncation symbol on the stop-word is too noisy (i.e. of* within your string leads to a common phrase).

Screenshot showing the results of 6 search strings in Ovid Medline:
1. review* of review*.tw. = 15224 results
2. review* of* review*.tw. = 749 results
3. (review adj2 reviews).tw. = 1379 results
4. 2 not 3 = 60 results
5. (review* adj2 review*).tw. = 3026273 results
6. review*.tw. = 3026273 results

290

SRLibProblems @srlibproblems.bsky.social · 29/10/2024

Was reading this recent article (doi.org/10.32384/jeahil20607) and noticed a couple of awesome things: 1) They used 6 datasets and included records from trial registries (clinicaltrials.gov and WHO ICTRP) alongside bibliographic databases. 2) This 👍 visual explaining terms incl precision and recall.

Screenshot of Figure 1 showing:
Correctly identified - Unique - is a True negative
Correctly identified - Duplicate - is a True positive
Incorrectly identified - Unique - is a False negative
Incorrectly identified - Duplicate - is a False positive

Precision = (True positive)/(True positive + False positive)

Recall = (True positive)/(True positive + False negative)

A precise tool will have few results incorrectly classified as duplicates (false duplicates).
A tool with high recall will have missed fewer duplicates

032

SRLibProblems @srlibproblems.bsky.social · 27/09/2024

As I update slides for a SR workshop, I am reminded how much I love this table - for explaining the differences between #SystematicReviews, #ScopingReviews, and #MappingReviews. The inclusion of objective and scope information in the table is SO helpful. (DOI: doi.org/10.1016/j.jc...).

Screenshot of Table 1 from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.05.012 which shows the differences in methodologies between mapping review, systematic reviews and scoping reviews. Parameters covered include: Objective, A priori review protocol, PROSPERO registration, Methodology, Scope, Searching of studies, etc.

051

SRLibProblems @srlibproblems.bsky.social · 17/09/2024

Bluesky now has over 10 million users, and I was #326,912! 🤭

030

SRLibProblems @srlibproblems.bsky.social · 13/07/2024

Including by the group itself at one point 😆

Screenshot of the fulltext page of the following article: Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals: Writing and editing for biomedical publication International Committee of Medical Journal Editors Updated October 2005 (www.icmje.org) showing the acronym spelled as ICJME on the second paragraph

120

SRLibProblems @srlibproblems.bsky.social · 15/03/2024

Yes! Anyone who has read the #PRISMA statement & other documents would know the label itself is neither title-worthy nor indicative of a study type (or method). One should wonder why #Cochrane, #CampbellCollaboration, #JBI, #CEE, or other similar organizations don't title their reviews like that?

Screenshot of an article that shows the following sentence: "Firms use a variety of strategies to engage in greenwashing, including vague or misleading claims, selective disclosure of information, and green labels or certifications" from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0275531924000540?via%3Dihub

120

SRLibProblems @srlibproblems.bsky.social · 15/03/2024

I've noticed this in the titles of reviews for a while. Inspired by a recent post on the bird app of an article that does this t.co/IKCjfbYTGx, & by the topic of that article (greenwashing), I think #PRISMAwashing is an appropriate name for this practice of including #PRISMA in the title of reviews.

A screenshot of the results page of a Google Scholar search using the following search string: allintitle: ("PRISMA review" OR "PRISMA systematic review") showing 169 results

150

SRLibProblems @srlibproblems.bsky.social · 14/03/2024

Curious timing on your part. You might find this an interesting read! journals.lww.com/jbisrir/full...

Screenshot of the landing page of the article titled: Attack of zombie reviews? JBI Evidence Synthesis editors discuss the commentary “Definition, harms, and prevention of redundant systematic reviews” at this URL: https://journals.lww.com/jbisrir/fulltext/2024/03000/attack_of_zombie_reviews__jbi_evidence_synthesis.2.aspx

250

SRLibProblems @srlibproblems.bsky.social · 15/01/2024

I have bad news! This change in field description is not actioned. I tested it today 😭 I tested a TS search & compared it to TI, AB, AK, but the results were different. So, I tested TI, AB, AK, KP and the numbers matched TS. So, TS no longer mentions KP in the description but is still searching KP

Screenshot of three search strings in Web of Science Core Collection.
TS=ulcers - 135,181 results
ulcers (Title) or ulcers (Abstract) or ulcers (Author Keywords) - 118,042 results
TI=(ulcers) OR AB=(ulcers) OR AK=(ulcers) OR KP=(ulcers) - 135,181 results

120

SRLibProblems @srlibproblems.bsky.social · 11/01/2024

For folks who use #WebofScience Core Collection and avoided using the Topic field because of the Keywords Plus field, you no longer need to do that. Topic now searches Title, Abstract, and Author-Keywords, and does not search Keywords Plus anymore 🥳 #ExpertSearching #MedLibs

Screenshot of the Web of Science Core Collection screen showing that the Topic field seaeches: title, abstract, and author keywords

122

SRLibProblems @srlibproblems.bsky.social · 10/01/2024

Solved but confusing! Single term (no truncation) only returns exact titles ❌ Add * & it works ✔️ Example: SO=(palliative) ❌ SO=(palliative*) ✔️ SO=(palliative* care*) has the same result with/without "", & allows terms to be apart 🙄 SO=(palliative care*) looks for "palliative care*" as a phrase 🙃

SO=(palliative) leads to 0 results
SO=(palliative*) leads to 5185 results
SO=(palliative* care*) leads to 1794 results
SO=("palliative* care*") leads to 1794 results
SO=(palliative care*) leads to 189 results
SO=("palliative care*") leads to 189 results

130

SRLibProblems @srlibproblems.bsky.social · 20/12/2023

New logo! Thanks @craftyhilary.bsky.social for pointing it out. Maybe this will help people understand that EBSCOhost is NOT a database 🤔? One can hope.

330

SRLibProblems @srlibproblems.bsky.social · 10/12/2023

What is wrong with this #PRISMA flow diagram?

PRISMA flow diagram with the following data.
[Top left] Records from Databases (n=200), other sources (n=10)
[Top right] Records removed before screening: Duplicate orders removed (n=180)
[Second row left] Records screened (n=120)
[Second row right] Records excluded (n=60)
[Third row left] Reports assessed for eligibility (n=100)
[Third row right] Full-text articles excluded with reasons (n=83)
[Fourth row left] Studies included in review (n=17)

420

SRLibProblems @srlibproblems.bsky.social · 14/11/2023

New insight about how #WebofScience translates a phrased search query in the Topic field. We know that for phrases without " ", WoS separates the words & uses AND between. But in the TS (topic) field, it seems to allow the phrase to split across fields. i.e. Search #1, rather than #3. #MedLibs

Screenshot of a Web of Science search showing the number of results for the following search strings:

Search 1: ((TI=(pressure) OR AB=(pressure) OR AK=(pressure) OR KP=(pressure) ) AND (TI=(ulcers) OR AB=(ulcers) OR AK=(ulcers) OR KP=(ulcers))) - 15,464 results

Search 2: TS=((pressure ulcers)) - 15,464 results

Search 3: ((TI=(pressure ulcers) OR AB=(pressure ulcers) OR AK=(pressure ulcers) OR KP=(pressure ulcers) ) ) - 13,629 results

164