In a sense, I’m hesitant to admit my conclusions! I used PubMed (and I’m used to using CINAHL); the AHRQ National Guideline Clearing House and Google to search for information about Monogenic Diabetes.
Monogenic Diabetes is a fairly new name for a condition that may have been mistakenly identified as either Type I or Type II diabetes since those terms were coined. There are two kinds of monogenic diabetes:
· Maturity Onset Diabetes of the Young (MODY), and
· Permanent Neonatal Diabetes
What’s exciting is that if it’s properly diagnosed, most of those with it can stop using insulin. So… because it is fairly new, I wasn’t certain that I’d find a great deal of information. PubMed returned 118 articles, that decreased to 47 when I chose ‘English-language only’, ‘adults’, and ‘articles less than 5 years old’. Not bad. However, when I reviewed them, they were narrowly focused on single chromosome mutations, etc. and of not a great deal of value to one who was looking for a broader overview.
Next I checked the AHRQ National Guidelines Database, and tried multiple search terms. Each time, the same three articles appeared, none of which had anything to do with monogenic diabetes. I think it’s much too early to expect national guidelines to have been created for this condition.
Finally, I used Google search, and this is what I’m not sure I want to admit. Within seconds, Google returned 96,400 results! There were an impressive number of credible journal articles, and they were the broad overview types I’d hoped to find in PubMed. I then did another search using Google Scholar, and again, within seconds, most of the articles that I had worked so hard to find on PubMed appeared. The best part is that it’s possible to import Google Scholar references into EndNote. (http://www.endnote.com/support/Faqs/Import/faq11.asp) So, at least right now I’m thinking I’ll probably continue to use Google/Google Scholar, and combine it with EndNote. What do you think?
Carma - I've found the same thing with regard to the Google searches. So now when I do a search I not only search the CINAHL but also run a Google search. One thing I ran into with the Google search was I sometimes had to pay for the full text while the CINAHL access through VPN allowed me access. Amazing what Google can do!
ReplyDeleteGood point. I check Google first (quick) and then if it's something I want, I go through VPN and attempt to get full text. Best of both worlds!
ReplyDeleteSounds like Google scholar was a hit, one limitation may be that you are not able to get full text--although search as a VPN client may have its advantages (full text).
ReplyDelete