Articles

‘We call it NHS Evidence provided by NICE’

In search engines on June 19, 2009 by Danielle Tagged: , , , , , ,

Gillian Leng has spoken! In an HSJ article published yesterday (p. 16-17), Leng discussed NHS Evidence‘s similarities with Google-but only as far as how easy it is to use. Of course, NHS Evidence is of superior quality and relevance to the clinician.  A user review following the article suggested that there is still some work to be done in making sure links are functioning. The reviewer asks the question: will “resources that have not been throught the [accreditation] process be dropped over time or not promoted?”

With regards to accredited resources, Leng expects a 30% success rate. A couple of potential flaws of this system are that not all good evidence will be covered by the ‘marque’ system (as not every organisation is gagging to apply) and of course, the one pointed out earlier- what becomes of the second tier evidence? The age old problem of ignoring lesser sources if there is no ‘gold standard’ evidence rears its hoary head again. You just can’t do this. You will leave health care practitioners with myriad information gaps. If there is a role for DUETs, as I believe there is, they must actually seek to answer these unanswered questions rather than omitting uncertainties in order to look authoritative. Will DUETs be accredited also?

Another information tidbit offered up by the article was that ‘Release 2’ of NHS Evidence is scheduled for October. It will include customisation functionality, in the tradition of iGoogle, for the homepage of this resource.

And, might I suggest, some sort of organised, reliable and valid qualitative research into what people make of NHS Evidence? If I may speak plainly, I find the invitation to Conduct a specialised search (along the top menu) unnerving (and I am trained to do this!) and off-putting. Hopefully others’ experiences differ.

Advertisements

One Response to “‘We call it NHS Evidence provided by NICE’”

  1. Conduct a specialised search is a little unnerving. It is yet another attempt to find a way to talk about searching the bibligraphic databases in a way that does not included the word bibliographic or database.
    A prize for anyone who comes up with a brilliant, user oriented way of expressing this concept.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: