PubMed · 11984108
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
Ann B Hamric. 2002. Dealing with the knowledge explosion.. https://doi.org/10.1097/00002800-200203000-00006
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
Most existing Mass Spectra (MS) analysis programs are automatic and provide limited opportunity for editing during the interpretation. Furthermore, they rely entirely on publicly available databases for interpretation. VEMS (Virtual Expert Mass Spectrometrist) is a program for interactive analysis of peptide MS/MS spectra imported in text file format. Peaks are annotated, the monoisotopic peaks retained, and the b-and y-ion series identified in an interactive manner. The called peptide sequence is searched against a local protein database for sequence identity and peptide mass. The report compares the calculated and the experimental mass spectrum of the called peptide. The program package includes four accessory programs. VEMStrans creates protein databases in FASTA format from EST or cDNA sequence files. VEMSdata creates a virtual peptide database from FASTA files. VEMSdist displays the distribution of masses up to 5000 Da. VEMSmaldi searches singly charged peptide masses against the local database.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
BACKGROUND: Published systematic reviews on prediction of preterm birth have tended to focus on a limited number of tests and their search strategies have often been relatively simple. Evaluation of all available tests in a systemic review will require a broad search strategy. AIM: To describe a case study of electronic searching for a systematic review of accuracy studies evaluating all tests for predicting preterm birth. METHODS: The search strategy, developed to capture literatures concerning all the tests en-masse consisted of formulation of an appropriate combination of search terms, pilot searches to refine the search term combination, selection of relevant databases, and citation retrieval from the refined searches for selection of potentially relevant papers. Electronic searches were carried out on general bibliographic databases (Biosis, Embase, Medline, Pascal and Scisearch), specialised databases (Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness, Medion, National Research Register, Cochrane Controlled Trial Register and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews). RESULTS: A total of 30076 citations were identified. Of these 8855 (29%) citations were duplications either within a database or across databases. Of the remaining 21221 citations, 3333 were considered potentially relevant to the review after assessment by two reviewers. These citations covered 19 different tests for predicting preterm birth. CONCLUSIONS: This case study suggests that with use of a concerted effort to organise and manage the electronic searching it is feasible to undertake broad searches for systematic reviews with multiple questions.