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).
Other regional titles with the same name (Nursing spectrum) are found in the NLM catalog and CINAHL. The title may have changed names from Nursing Spectrum to "Nurse.com" CINAHL kept both names in the journal title field, but the NLM catalog has "Nurse.com", Nursing Spectrum, and the combined option
The JBI logo appears in the bottom right, bold white text reads “Methodology Month” on a rounded blue banner, set against a dark blue background with abstract connected lines and nodes representing diverse methodologies grounded in shared principles, forming clear, systematic pathways that guide users step by step to rigorous, transparent, and trustworthy evidence syntheses. The JBI logo depicts a pebble (‘evidence’) dropping into water, symbolising the ripple effect of positive change driven by evidence.
🔥 Hot tip! Before starting a systematic review, make sure an information scientist/research librarian is part of the review team. They have specialised skills to develop & implement a comprehensive search strategy 🔎
Learn more: bit.ly/4spgp1z
#JBIMethodology #medlibs
This is a move in the right direction, for use in #SystematicReview:
1) Stem/no stem ability in web app
2) Truncation & wildcard operators - and in combination with the stem/no stem toggle
3) Proximity operator (Limited like PubMed's - no truncation allowed with proximity)
Still a big improvement!
Longer search strings might still require use of AND instead of proximity because the character limit won't allow the writing out of each combination (compared to operators that allow nested OR within the proximity string).
If #OpenAlex is listening: larger character limits would be really great.
New studies will follow. The longevity of the studies' results depend on the decisions that were made. E.g. the Stansfield study used AND in lieu of proximity which broadened the search (better sensitivity, worse precision) - the new functions should give similar or better results (for what matters)
I use their documentation page so many times, that I usually land on the page and immediately use the menu on the left to scroll down to the search section, without looking at the top of the page. Scrolling too fast! 😅. Having seen the same info I was used to (no proximity/wildcard), I asked the Q
I was looking at this page which is still linked to at the bottom of the OpenAlex page docs.openalex.org/how-to-use-t.... I skipped past the note pointing to the new developer page you linked to. The wildcard and proximity search is a very exciting development. Thanks for sharing. Will check it out!
Do you mean proximity in the semantic search? They don't mention any proximity option in their Boolean search, so my ears perked up when I saw your mention of proximity.
Since I used #OpenAlex to design and export a #systematicreview search last night, I had to double check just now that my search string still gives the same number of results (it should!).... and it does 🎉.
This is exactly what I would expect from a stable system (which OpenAlex is).
Or,
5) My search query once executed (except via the API query or URL, which isn't the same)
Today it looks like what it was on Friday 🤔.
What a trip! I guess I saw a peek of the changes that are coming???
Their blog hints at some of the features I saw (semantic search, full-text search).
3) A combined title, abstract, & fulltext search option (in addition to the existing title only, or title & abstract search). This will be useful for scoping/special cases
But, I could no longer see:
4) A way to do one concept per line, with the various lines automatically adding together with AND
2) Improved filter experience.
I was delighted to see how quick & easy it was to see how many/what results are categorized according to individual "type" so I know what "types" to include/exclude (very handy)
As I began designing my search, I had to familiarize myself with the new look, where certain functions were and the new things I could do, and to work around what I could no longer do.
New things I saw:
1) the ability to do a semantic search (using a toggle between Boolean and Semantic)
I've used #OpenAlex (web) a lot this week, for exploratory searching & scoping, to show a colleague how it works, & even creating & exporting a search for a #SystematicReview.
Interestingly, I was on it yesterday and was surprised to see the interface had changed from what I had used the day before
I have used many of the tips on this blog. Today, I used the instructions (and tool mentioned) in this post (uxcaucustips.blogspot.com/2025/04/tip-...) to generate two sets of records from a draft Ovid Medline search, so the research team can do some sampling. #MLAUXCaucus #MedLibs #CanMedLibs
New guidelines for the use of #AI in evidence synthesis in the environmental fields
I'm going to have to look into the options (and tools) for citation chaining again, in the near future, but from this perspective. #EvidenceSynthesis
I tried Zotero earlier, which sources metadata from Crossref & was surprised to see the same (missing abstracts) when using the "add item by identifier" function
It was great (timely) to see @aarontay.bsky.social discuss abstracts (+ the implications) this week aarontay.substack.com/p/the-petrol...
In my case, it was a small number of records with missing abstracts & I had the DOIs, so I decided to manually locate the missing data (from Primo at my institution, or via the publisher page) to add/edit the RIS file. Doing so will allow the records to be screened without disruption, in Covidence.
To be clear, the problem is not the tool (Citation Chaser or Lens.org, where Citation Chaser gets its metadata from). The problem is the publishers that are withholding and preventing the abstracts from being openly available.
And the impact in this case, is on screening at the title-abstract level
Chasing down abstracts while pulling records for citation chaining (in this case, backwards citation chaining) is no fun and reduces efficiency. Tools like Citation Chaser are awesome, but (as I noticed earlier this week) the process becomes less efficient when some records are missing abstracts.
I think you might also enjoy "PRISMA compliant"[tiab:~2]
students who use it for a one off, who want to download 20-50 search results so they can explore them further in a citation manager, will be inconvenienced.
I wish database vendors would allow small batch record downloading without accounts, and have the RIS format as a standard available format.
Not liking this spreading practice where database providers now require use of an account to download any records or in specific formats (RIS); not even a small number. I know advanced users (including evidence synthesis librarians/researchers) will create their accounts and continue along but
You would not get those records if you searched human rights in TI OR AB because it will parse each line separately and use AND between the words but stay within the field.
This is how I understood what the page said. Please do share if I am missing something. From what I see, I can safely use XB
In this case, " ", or the proximity operator would override the default mode (find all terms, etc) so no impact. But if you searched human rights (with no " ") in XB versus TI or AB, you would get different results. In XB, you will find instances where human is in title and rights is in the abstract
It sounds like the issues would only happen in situations where the default mode is activated (find all terms, or proximity). But, this won't apply to most systematic searches. For example, most librarians will use "human rights" with " " around the phrase, or a proximity (human N3 rights).
Never been so happy to have followed good #DataManagement practices. There were times that I almost didn't take the time to use the naming convention, but I resisted.
I must remember to thank my awesome colleagues for inspiring this in my practice (they know who they are ❤️). #CanMedLibs
Saw a post about moving searches out of custom folders in EBSCO, which reminded me to get on it.
I moved 105 saved searches from 20 custom folders into one saved searches folder 😒. Thankfully, no renaming needed as I used this naming convention from the start: libguides.ucalgary.ca/DMPforSR/dat...