Instructions Thank you for your discussion post. As part of the discussion post requirements, which article about the renal disease was selected as your resource? You stated that you found the article credible, so I am curious which one you chose. I appreciate your precise response related to how you know your source is credible. Information is knowledge, as you stated, and can assist students and healthcare providers in gaining insight into disease processes to share with patients to better care for themselves or understand their disease process.
Below is the initial post
Comparing PubMed to Google Scholar in Retrieval of Clinical Evidence
Health care continues to evolve into information and data-dependent enterprise. Therefore, health professionals must prepare to contribute using the already available data and information tools and techniques. As per McGonigle, D., and Mastrian, K. (2018), the advancement of nursing science is imminent with the evolution of nursing informatics, and nurses and health practitioners need to understand the essence of information technology in this process evolution. Various delivery systems such as PubMed and Google Scholar have been developed to help improve the accessibility of nursing information through information technology.
In the narrowing down to the topic of discussion (Renal Disease), a general topic on lifestyle diseases was searched in random search engines. This search gave various topics that addressed multiple lifestyle diseases; through scheming, twenty topic statements were related and were selected. Generally, they managed numerous sections, and to come up with an inclusive topic statement, these 20 topic sections were searched on Google Scholar and PubMed, and similarities were identified. These aspects were consolidated and put into a specific topic (Renal Disease) that provided a comprehensive article when searched both on PubMed and Google Scholar. This article is deemed credible as it engages a general but detailed scope. PubMed and Google Scholar compared using the searches from the 20 record topics (approximately two different default search pages in both). Employing Gusenbauer’s and Haddaway’s (2020) technique, I evaluated the relevance the searches have to the topics and the ratio of the relevant articles to that of the non-relevant. I further checked if the articles are full texts and, if so, whether they are free. The initial 20 search topics were the relevance standard. On analysis, Google Scholar had relevant articles twice the average searches in PubMed (Google Scholar: 0.20, PubMed: 0.11; p<0.001). Google Scholar and PubMed had almost the same precision (PubMed: 0.06, Google Scholar: 0.08; p= 0.07). Google Scholar also provided significant access to free publications compared to PubMed. For effective clinical searches, I would recommend Google Scholar as it offered twice as many articles as PubMed, and it had more free publications that can be readily reliable.
Database searches are of significance to scholarly work as one can acquire various information that gives room for comparison for the best article. These articles also offer credibility in any literary work through the many research aspects related to the discussion. The database can also facilitate nursing work as it connects various health practitioners by creating a global community that interacts through academic research articles. The interaction happens when a nursing practitioner either searches an existing health article to insight their work or solve a problem or when a practitioner uploads their research articles for others to access the database. Generally, database searches help improve self-development. The more one accesses these databases, the more they become equipped with knowledge that helps develop robust academic-oriented thinking and inspires their day-to-day activities. These databases also help people to build on the inside and ideas that they already have.
Gusenbauer, M., & Haddaway, N. R. (2020). Which academic search systems are suitable for systematic reviews or meta‐analyses? Evaluating retrieval qualities of Google scholar, PubMed, and 26 other resources. Research Synthesis Methods, 11(2), 181-217.
McGonigle, D. & Mastrian, K. (2018). Nursing informatics and the foundation of knowledge (4th Ed.). Jones & Bartlett and any other Scholarly Sources.
Want a similar task completed for you? Worry no more! Simply place your order at myessaydoer.com by clicking on the ORDER NOW option.
Myessaydoer’s team of experts is available 24/7 to assist you in completing such tasks. We assure you of a well written and plagiarism free paper. Place your order at myessaydoer.com by clicking on the ORDER NOW option and get a 20% discount on your first assignment.