Bipolar querying of valid-time intervals subject to uncertainty

Databases model parts of reality by containing data representing properties of real-world objects or concepts. Often, some of these properties are time-related. Thus, databases often contain data representing time-related information. However, as they may be produced by humans, such data or information may contain imperfections like uncertainties. An important purpose of databases is to allow their data to be queried, to allow access to the information these data represent. Users may do this using queries, in which they describe their preferences concerning the data they are (not) interested in. Because users may have both positive and negative such preferences, they may want to query databases in a bipolar way. Such preferences may also have a temporal nature, but, traditionally, temporal query conditions are handled specifically. In this paper, a novel technique is presented to query a valid-time relation containing uncertain valid-time data in a bipolar way, which allows the query to have a single bipolar temporal query condition

Issues in student training and use of electronic bibliographic databases

In an article in this journal Ottewill and Hudson (1997) raised a number of issues concerning students’ use of electronic bibliographic databases. They emphasized the need for co‐operation between academics and librarians in database training and in coursework where databases would be used. We report a project on students’ use of bibliographic databases. Our findings reveal that access to these databases, whilst solving many of the problems students experience in sourcing reference material for coursework and research, raises new intellectual problems due to the sheer breadth and depth of their coverage of subject matter. Typically database training programmes focus on search skills and the use of different interfaces. However, our findings demonstrate that students should be encouraged to develop a more critical perspective on databases since these can be seductive, time‐consuming and, in certain circumstances, counterproductive resources. Students would benefit from more guidance on the quality cues that academics and librarians employ when evaluating different databases and their contents

Bipolarity in the querying of temporal databases

A database represents part of reality by containing data representing properties of real objects or concepts. To many real-world concepts or objects, time is an essential aspect and thus it should often be (implicitly) represented by databases, making these temporal databases. However, like other data, the time-related data in such databases may also contain imperfections such as uncertainties. One of the main purposes of a database is to allow the retrieval of information or knowledge deduced from its data, which is often done by querying the database. Because users may have both positive and negative preferences, they may want to query a database in a bipolar way. Moreover, their demands may have some temporal aspects. In this paper, a novel technique is presented, to query a valid-time relation containing uncertain valid-time data in a heterogeneously bipolar way, allowing every elementary query constraint a specific temporal constraint

Are systematic reviews up-to-date at the time of publication?

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews provide a synthesis of evidence for practitioners, for clinical practice guideline developers, and for those designing and justifying primary research. Having an up-to-date and comprehensive review is therefore important. Our main objective was to determine the recency of systematic reviews at the time of their publication, as measured by the time from last search date to publication. We also wanted to study the time from search date to acceptance, and from acceptance to publication, and measure the proportion of systematic reviews with recorded information on search dates and information sources in the abstract and full text of the review. METHODS: A descriptive analysis of published systematic reviews indexed in Medline in 2009, 2010 and 2011 by three reviewers, independently extracting data. RESULTS: Of the 300 systematic reviews included, 271 (90%) provided the date of search in the full-text article, but only 141 (47%) stated this in the abstract. The median (standard error; minimum to maximum) survival time from last search to acceptance was 5.1 (0.58; 0 to 43.8) months (95% confidence interval = 3.9 to 6.2) and from last search to first publication time was 8.0 (0.35; 0 to 46.7) months (95% confidence interval = 7.3 to 8.7), respectively. Of the 300 reviews, 295 (98%) stated which databases had been searched, but only 181 (60%) stated the databases in the abstract. Most researchers searched three (35%) or four (21%) databases. The top-three most used databases were MEDLINE (79%), Cochrane library (76%), and EMBASE (64%). CONCLUSIONS: Being able to identify comprehensive, up-to-date reviews is important to clinicians, guideline groups, and those designing clinical trials. This study demonstrates that some reviews have a considerable delay between search and publication, but only 47% of systematic review abstracts stated the last search date and 60% stated the databases that had been searched. Improvements in the quality of abstracts of systematic reviews and ways to shorten the review and revision processes to make review publication more rapid are needed