First step is to log into your MyNCBI account.  Then run your search.  Here’s a basic example:

Once you get the results, click “Save Search”:

Give your search a name, then click “Save”:

Your search has now been saved!  If you want to be alerted when new literature is available, just click one of the email options:

Need more help? Check out this tutorial:

This short UCSF Library video shows you how to use One-Line/Cite to add references to your paper and format a bibliography:

Note that the One Line / Cite View method of citing will support any word processor which is able to save or export documents in a .doc, .docx, .rtf or .odt format. This  include Pages, OpenOffice and most other word processors.

(The video was created by Quincy McCrary).

At UCSF, the Clinical and Translational Science Institute (CTSI) has built a website linking to a collection of large datasets that can be downloaded for research purposes. Researchers can also request a consultation, and find information on working with large data sets from this website.

CTSI Data Sets Inventory

Many government agencies also collect and store data that can be downloaded by faculty or students for use in their own research studies or projects. Data can be found online at the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), and the CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) web pages.

The Sate of California provides health data through its Office of Statewide Health Planning and Administration (OSHPD). While access to many data sets is freely available, access to data containing personal information requiures special authorization. The restrictred data sets available from OSHPD include patient discharge data and emergency department and ambulatory surgery data. The library maintains the required release forms, and can provide this data to the UCSF Community. The data is stored on CD-ROM and is on Library Reserve, able to be checked out for seven days once the forms are completed and signed. For access to OSHPD restricted data sets, please contact Andy Panado at 502-4178. Or you can contact the library using this web page.

JBI Evidence-Based Nursing Databases has been available to UCSF Medical Center since last August. Now, the Library provides the UCSF-wide online access to JBI’s new Synthesis Science in HealthCare Online Books series. This book series will help you understand the JBI model of evidence-based healthcare, evaluate qualitative and quantitative research, assess evidence from intervention and diagnostic accuracy studies and learn ways to minimize risks from adverse events.  You may access the book series via the Library Catalog.

• Synthesizing economic evidence / Catalin Tufanaru, Woan-Shin Tan
• Synthesizing evidence from narrative, text and opinion / Zoe Jordan, Rie Konno, Pei Fan Mu
• Synthesizing evidence of diagnostic accuracy / Sarahlouise White, Tim Schultz, Yeetey Akpe Kwesi Enuameh
• Synthesizing evidence of risk / Edoardo Aromataris, Lisa Hopp, Zachary Munn
• Synthesizing qualitative evidence / Alan Pearson, Suzi Robertson-Malt, Leslie Rittenmeyer
• Synthesizing quantitative evidence / Craig Lockwood, Ralua Sfetcu, Eui Geum Oh
• Translation science and the JBI model of evidence-based healthcare / Alan Pearson, Susan Weeks, Cindy Stern

You must use VPN@UCSF for remote access. 

That’s where MyNCBI comes in.  With MyNCBI, you can save searches indefinitely, organize your results, set up email alerts, create bibliographies and even create your own custom filters.

To get started, first set up your MyNCBI account (it’s free).  You can get there via the Library’s link “PubMed@UCSF”.

Once in PubMed,    just click on “MyNCBI” at the top…

then “Register for an account”.

If you need help registering and/or setting up your account, check out this tutorial:

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/bsd/disted/pubmedtutorial/070_010.html

The guide covers all the basic search techniques in PubMed. It explains the contents of the PubMed database and how the PubMed search interface works. You can learn how to narrow a search using the Limits feature, or how to quickly find a specific citation to an article using the Single Citation Matcher. There are some brief tutorials embedded into the guide, giving you step-by-step instructions for using specific search features. Learn how to break down your clinical question using Boolean Operators, and learn the power of quickly finding randomized controlled trials using the Clinical Queries feature.

The guide also covers the various display options for reviewing your retrieved citations and abstracts, and explains how to save, print, and download the information you need, including using the Clipboard, a temporary space to save references before printing or downloading. It will also explain how to get to the full text of articles when you are in PubMed by using UC-eLinks.

If you still have questions after reviewing the information in this guide, you can always take one of the Library’s PubMed classes, or make an appointment for a personal consultation with a Librarian.

Looking for a tool to help you index and organize your research papers online? Described by some folks as “iTunes for researchers,” Mendeley is a free reference manager and PDF organizer. OK, you currently use RefWorks or EndNote for managing references, so why consider yet another one?

Mendeley is unique in that it’s designed to be an academic social networking tool as well as a platform-independent citation management application. Mendeley Web is a social network where you can create groups, invite friends (fellow researchers), and stay up to date on what other people are reading.  Mendeley combines an easy to use web-based interface with a desktop application for managing your citations and online documents. The Mendeley desktop tool is available for Mac, Windows, and Linux, and there are versions available for the iPhone and iPad.

Some of Mendeley’s main features include:

• Automatically generates bibliographies
• Easy to Collaborate with other researchers online
• Easily import papers from other research software
• Find relevant papers based on what you’re reading
• Access your papers from anywhere online
• Read papers on the go, with a new iPhone app

Use the following links to read more about Mendeley:

Main Mendeley web-site

MENDELEY FAQ (UCSF Library)

FRPAA was previously introduced in 2006 in the Senate by Cornyn and in 2009 in both the House and Senate, but did not make it out of committee in either Congress. What’s different now? The bill has bipartisan support and an increasing number of supporters at that, not to mention the growing interest in open access to research articles in the interest of advancing science and improving health.

The National Institutes of Health Policy of 2008 also changed the game – NIH was the first U.S. federal agency to mandate publicly-accessible, online dissemination of research articles that come from research dollars it awards. FRPAA would take NIH’s policy even further, requiring all federal agencies awarding over $100M in total research grants to ensure public dissemination of published articles within six months, compared to NIH’s twelve months. A partial list of agencies FRPAA would apply to includes: the NIH, the National Science Foundation, and the Department of Health & Human Services.

Not only are scholars, libraries, and citizens paying attention to public access to scholarly works, it’s on the White House’s radar as well. In November 2011 the Office of Science & Technology Policy requested public input on “long-term preservation of, and public access to, the results of federally funded research”. The comments can be read here.

FRPAA is beginning with even more support in 2012 than it did the last time it was introduced, however Congress needs to hear support for FRPAA – and against RWA/H.R. 3699 – in order for change to happen. Be part of that change by contacting Senators Cornyn, Wyden, and Hutchinson, and Representatives Doyle, Yoder, and Clay to voice your support for FRPAA. Use form letters created by the Alliance for Taxpayer Access’s to contact your legislators about both FRPAA and RWA, and sign ATA’s petition. Talk to your colleagues and involve your societies, too!

To learn more about FRPAA, see this Wired article and the FRPAA wiki.

A bill introduced in the House of Representatives in December 2011 could have enormous consequences for scientific and medical researchers if passed. Cited as the Research Works Act (RWA) (H.R. 3699), this legislation would prohibit any federal agency from engaging in any activity that :

1. results in the dissemination of published articles without the prior consent of the publisher of the work; or
2. requires that any actual or prospective author, or the employer of such author, assent to dissemination of a published research work.

Essentially, RWA would nullify the NIH Public Access Policy, which requires that the public has access to the published results of NIH funded research within 12 months of publication. This policy was implemented in 2008, and it was a significant move to ensure U.S. citizens’ right to read published results of research funded through taxpayer dollars, free of charge. Since so much of the research funding at UCSF comes from the NIH, our researchers are very familiar with this policy and making sure (sometimes painstakingly) that their articles get deposited in PubMed Central.

Though several publications were already making all articles freely accessible 12 or fewer months after initial publication, many publishers opposed the NIH Policy since it makes some of their published content free that would otherwise only be accessible through a subscription or other paid access.  In 2008 and 2009 publishing interests got the “Fair Copyright in Research Works Act” introduced into Congress; it died both times in committee.

Two years later, the publisher-backed RWA is back, demonstrating that some publishers are willing to keep fighting the NIH Policy and prevent other government agencies from implementing something similar. Who is behind RWA? The Association of American Publishers (AAP) is the primary backer, though not all of AAP’s members support RWA. MIT Press, AAAS, Nature, and BioMed Central are among the publishers opposing RWA.  One of AAP’s members – Elsevier Science – is receiving most of the blame for getting this bill introduced by Representatives Carolyn B. Maloney, Democrat of New York, and Darrell Issa, a Republican from California. So much so that more than 4,500 researchers have signed a petition vowing to boycott Elsevier publications.

Whether or not it’s fair to single out Elsevier as the bad guy, it’s clear that scholars around the world are beginning to take a different stance on their role in the scholarly publishing cycle. Scientists are behind many of the innovations in publishing and online communications tools such as the Public Library of Science, arXiv, and ResearchGate.

As of January 11, the RWA bill has been referred to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, and may or may not make it to the House floor for a vote.

Update, March 18, 2012: On February 27, Representatives Issa and Maloney issued a statement announcing that they would not be taking legislative action on RWA/H.R. 3699. The same day, the publisher Elsevier withdrew its support for RWA, clearing any doubt about the connection between the powerful publisher and the introduction of this bill into Congress. While Elsevier states it still opposes a government mandate to require public access to published articles, it is clear that the enormous amount of bad publicity the company received as a result of their initial support for RWA influenced its decision to pull back that support.

In their statement, Issa and Maloney change course, acknowledging the transformation occurring in the scholarly publishing industry:

As the costs of publishing continue to be driven down by new technology, we will continue to see a growth in open access publishers. This new and innovative model appears to be the wave of the future. The transition must be collaborative, and must respect copyright law and the principles of open access. The American people deserve to have access to research for which they have paid. This conversation needs to continue and we have come to the conclusion that the Research Works Act has exhausted the useful role it can play in the debate.

Indeed, the conversation will continue. The FRPAA bill (H.R. 4004) to mandate public access to federally funded research is in committee. It is likely that any policy changes will only be set forth once the White House’s Office of Science & Technology Policy takes action following review of comments regarding “long-term preservation of, and public access to, the results of federally funded research”.

Want to get involved? Here are some steps:

1. If you are a member of a society, check your society’s position on public access to grant-funded research results, and start a dialog with the society decision-makers and other members.
2. Visit the Legislative Action Center on the Alliance for Taxpayer Access’ site.
3. Write a letter of opinion to a newspaper.
4. Leave a comment to let us know what you think about these issues.

• chemical composition
• biochemical role and function — both in vitro and in vivo
• clinical trials
• health and adverse effects
• fortification
• traditional Chinese medicine and other folk/ethnic supplement practices
• cultivation of botanical products used as dietary supplements
• surveys of dietary supplement use

To use this subset you just go to the PubMed Limits page and select Dietary Supplements from the Subset menu:

A search for peer-reviewed papers on the use of dietary supplements in sports:

The subset is a collaboration between the NIH Office of Dietary Supplements and the National Library of Medicine.