The Search Principle blog

It’s my great pleasure to welcome in the academic year by introducing:

The UBC Biomedical Branch Library – BMB 2.0

Photo 1 | Photo 2 | Photo 3 | Photo 4 | Photo 5 | Photo 6 | Photo 7 | Photo 8 | Photo 9 | Photo 10 | Photo 11 |

The Diamond Health Care Centre features lots of natural light, an atrium opening onto study areas in the library, reliable, portable UBC wireless, close proximity to ~1000 clinical staff, students and departments – and, an ideal circulation desk. My office is near the computers, reference area.

Please come and visit – I’ll bring you up to date on the latest in searching !~ Dean

What surprises me most about the new UBC HealthLib-Wiki is that I hadn’t thought of creating it before. Admittedly, I have had lots of help from SLAIS, and other UBC departments, including Brian Lamb, librarians like Jeremiah Saunders – but, this wiki has loads of potential. Canadian health librarians have never really had a centralized knowledge-base, or encyclopedia. MLA has its own publishing arm, and a history of publishing reference sources to support health library practice – but, we haven’t.

That said, it’ll be fascinating to test the technology, its flexibility, scalability and searchability (how long until Google crawls it?). I would like the wiki to be useful for health librarians in other jurisdictions, and to that end check out the newly-written entries on Associations, and search engines. Hey, why not join the fun? Dean

For readers of UBC google scholar blog, you may recall that Mary Sue Stephenson at SLAIS, and the folks in the Faculty of Arts, have agreed to host a wiki for LIBR534 – Health information sources, and services. Well, the day has come to try out the wiki. Class starts Tuesday!

Here is UBC HealthLib-Wiki – http://hlwiki.slais.ubc.ca.

So far, I have loaded only the shell – think a strong hull. Please hold off for a week before you start contributing. I am working out details of the editing policy, and my formation of the Gentlemen’s Wiki Administrative Club, of which I will be the cruise director. Think 21st Century on the SS Normandie.

We will customize the wiki logo, top left. If you have an idea, let me know. Jeremiah came up with a caduceus logo, with headphones – love that. In the meantime, browse around – introduction, editing policies, etc are falling into place. – Dean

Locally-relevant… globally-searchable. I am taking a course on globalization, and how the phenomenon affects my work. This got me thinking about the impact of globalization in searching, and why making global information relevant to my own, local needs is getting more and more difficult. Is this Search 2.0?

Checking contributions over at Wikipedia, glocalization was defined (albeit poorly) but the basic idea got me thinking. Was it applicable to the searching we do for the systematic review (SR)? Major searching beyond MEDLINE and EMBASE is required for a lot of searching in medicine, and can take planning, and time. Specific, locally-important topics – HIV transmission in Vancouver’s downtown Eastside, for example – can mean a search of 50 or more databases, and take weeks.

Fragmentation of the medical literature was one reason why I suggested a portal/ vortal for physicians in the December issue of BMJ. But it didn’t occur to me at the time that trends in Web searching inevitably will reflect the best (and worst) of globalization. Perhaps a portal would introduce other problems. For instance, the over-anglicizing of search terms; a lack of plurality of scientific viewpoints, and a concomitant increase in bias; homogenization of ideas, and a recycled corpus of overly-popular articles that filter to the top of search results.

The notion of glocalization is, however, worth discussing in the context of what health librarians want to see from search. Physicians (and other health professionals) are affected by globalization – are we? Librarians are, as are the tools we use.

What types of information retrieval topics require searching for the locally-relevant, globally-accessible? Dean

This grainy photo is of the entrance to the old UBC Faculty of Medicine – Vancouver hospital, circa 1951. Heather Pavilion – where the UBC Biomedical Branch Library has been located since the early 1950s – looks pretty much the same today as it did then; except, this is our move day to the new Diamond Health Care Centre, a state of the art building at the corner of Oak and 12th Avenue in Vancouver Canada.

Before the mid-twentieth century, physicians in B.C. came from other parts of Canada, as there was no medical school here. Discussions of a UBC medical school began as early as 1918-19 in the full blush of optimism that accompanied the end of the Great War. It would take more than 25-30 years to get the School up and running, and another 50 years for us to move out of this building. By the way, the Heather Pavilion was built to contain the flu epidemic of 1917-1918, and it has done yeoman’s work for almost a century!

We’ve planned the library move for 8 years. I’ve had assistance from my library committee, from colleagues, Barbara Saint, Tricia Yu, Darrell Bailie, my summer practicum student, Allan Cho, a number of SLAIS students, the list goes on. The collection arrives today (it should fit). I am blogging today from my wireless laptop in my new office. The smell of fresh paint is also the smell of hope for a new future, and better times ahead.

Please come and see us in the new library. Whatever you do, remind yourself when times are tough in your library, that good times will always lie ahead. In closing, let me bid adieu to my pal, BMB. Good nite, old friend. Dean

1. Google scholar has added its own related articles feature. Anurag, send me some documentation! (Or, is this a secret too?) Google searchers can now link to other articles, similar to PubMed’s RA feature. Do searchers find this browsing useful?

2. Search Medica is a new search tool out of the U.K. Limit by “sites chosen by GPS”; recommend sites (social tagging); comment on those viewed; pull down menus, broaden and narrow results. What do you think of the results? Oy.

We are getting closer to loading the MediaWiki software for the new wiki; I’ve even been hitting around a draft table of contents.

UBC HealthLib-Wiki will have a mission similar to this blog, but with more of an encyclopedic approach to expert searching, e-resources and search tools for health librarians (see the draft for other topics under consideration). Is anything missing? Let me know what you think of the name and draft content, before the early September release. – Dean

My thumbs down for Google Health got a huge thumbs up from health librarians around the world. I got e-mails from Canadian and Brit librarians stressing how important this opportunity was to discuss our professional skills. Can you think of a comparable project where lawyers or doctors were so eager to give billable hours to a U.S. corporation? That’s what Google health, and librarian volunteers amounts to.

A few American librarians said in no uncertain terms, however, that volunteering for Google Health was a huge benefit to them professionally. Health librarians should be the first to volunteer to tag the Web, they said, and to bring better organization and findability to consumer health websites.

One concern expressed is whether Google Health is payback time for Stanford’s digitization project. Still others e-mailed that some librarians are credential/resume -conscious, and need AHIP. Either way, relying on librarians to improve a poorly-conceived project – one that ignored us from inception – seems odd.

Google (and Howard Fuller) should rethink an approach. How about a worldwide survey of librarians, asking for broader input? Librarians could select and submit their favorite consumer health websites – with tags – and let someone else do the input work. That way, librarians can contribute to best site selection and subject analysis, without the six-month time commitment; other health librarians beyond the MLA could submit selections that way (and less U.S./MLA bias in results).

Note to Google: it’s not that librarians don’t want to contribute skills & expertise to Google health. I’ve written about the benefits of Google searching. We’re flattered you asked. But, your approach needs some rethink (get clerks to input). Google would be better off encouraging librarians to volunteer for local charities, women’s shelters and food banks – instead of soliciting for our tagging labour. Can’t the world’s richest, most-used search engine find a better means to organize consumer health web search? While I am at it, how many librarians work at Google, exactly?

Thanks to Krafty, and to my colleague Teresa Lee (a former NLM fellow), I understand that Google Co-op Health, which got a thumbs down here in April has enlisted Stanford librarian Howard Fuller to coordinate a social tagging crew of experienced, professional librarians to build Google Health. Google is getting (and sending) the right message; health librarians are the most-qualified to tag websites for subsequent subject access, and efficient retrieval.

However, does Google (whose profits are that of a small country) really expect twenty MLA librarians to volunteer 45-60 minutes per week for six months? Twenty-six (26) weeks X ~$50 hr. X 20 librarians = $26,000.00 US dollars. A mere pittance for super-rich Google, but not for our profession. I haven’t seen Fuller’s message to CAPHIS, or MLA’s rationale in recommending librarians participate. I’d like to hear from them about why librarians should do this work for nothing. Niente.

Why can’t Google hire more librarians, like Microsoft? It’s a fair question: should professional librarians volunteer to do the work of the new knowledge economy for gratis? If our new graduates can’t get decent salaries, from companies like Google, we are in big trouble. This move by Google gets another big thumbs down.

~ Actual reference scenario ~

1. A physician wants to find clinical trials written from 2003-2006 that demonstrate paxil’s efficacy for post-partum depression (PPD). Problem is the physician need articles that discuss the risks in prescribing paxil for breast-feeding women.

2. What is the clinical question? In patients taking paxil for post-partum depression (PPD), are there clinical trials from 2003 to 2006 discussing whether breast milk poses risk to baby?”

3. Important keywords for this search? Paxil is trade name; (paroxetine); SSRI is class; post-partum depression (PPD) see also: ante-natal and post-natal depression; adverse effects; risks; risk assessment; risk factors; clinical trials; infant; mother.

4. Research paxil and post-partum depression. See concepts to understand basics. See CPS; MeSH database, MedlinePlus (Drugs): Dorland’s Dictionary entry; Wikipedia has entry on Paxil and Merck; see eMedicine. Paxil is a brand name of GlaxoSmithLine. Paroxetine hydrochloride [drug name]. Drug class: selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRIs) treats depression and anxiety disorders. Admin’d orally.

5. Index terms: MeSH & keywords: Various combinations of “Paroxetine”[MeSH] AND “Depression, Postpartum” [MeSH] AND “risk assessment” [MeSH] “breast feeding”[MeSH] OR “milk, human”[MeSH] OR “lactation”[MeSH]. Keywords can be used to increase retrieval if results look unhelpful or irrelevant. Limits: 2003-2006, Humans, English, Clinical Trial. Clinical queries.

6. Databases consulted, to start: PubMed.gov; Google Scholar; Scirus. I like Scirus as a free alternative to EMBASE – see the range of results.

Documented search:

PUBMED SEARCH

This search requires a thorough review of research in PubMed. In order, I mapped the terms from above:

1. paxil maps to Paroxetine[MeSH] 2377 results vs. 1325 results as [MAJR]

2. post-partum depression maps to Depression, Postpartum[MeSH]

3. AND’ing the MeSH sets = 10 results, added to clipboard

4. Given the few results, I did a keyword search for “postpartum” AND “depression” and (“Paxil” OR “paroxetine”) = 21 references

5. When I OR’d the 10 results and the 21 results = 21 references, same citations

6. When limited to “ENGLISH”, I got 19. And LIMIT to clinical trial:

J Clin Psychiatry. 2004 Sep;65(9):1236-41. The use of paroxetine and cognitive-behavioral therapy in postpartum depression and anxiety: a randomized controlled trial.Misri S, Reebye P, Corral M, Milis L.

7.These references may be useful, but I still wanted to pursue other articles because these dealt with PPD and paxil, and not risks to the baby when mother is breastfeeding. Therefore, I used keyword variations to get these articles:

a) Berle JO, Steen VM, Aamo TO, Breilid H, Zahlsen K, Spigset O. Breastfeeding during maternal antidepressant treatment with serotonin reuptake inhibitors: infant exposure, clinical symptoms, and cytochrome p450 genotypes.J Clin Psychiatry. 2004 Sep;65(9):1228-34. PMID: 15367050 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

b) Merlob P, Stahl B, Sulkes J. Paroxetine during breast-feeding: infant weight gain and maternal adherence to counsel.Eur J Pediatr. 2004 Mar;163(3):135-9. Epub 2004 Jan 24. PMID: 14745552 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

c) Hendrick V, Fukuchi A, Altshuler L, Widawski M, Wertheimer A, Brunhuber MV. Use of sertraline, paroxetine and fluvoxamine by nursing women. Br J Psychiatry. 2001 Aug;179:163-6. PMID: 11483479 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

8) GOOGLE SCHOLAR

Using terms from above, I searched:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=postpartum+depression+++paxil+OR+paroxetine+%22breast+feeding%22&;hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&as_subj=med&scoring=r&as_ylo=2001

CINAHL is not as useful as Google scholar here as its focus is nursing whereas GS crawls peer-reviewed medical research, websites and open access journals. I should check PsycINFO and LactMed, time permitting.