Why I Love and Hate PubMed

PubMed has long stood as an essential resource in the biomedical research community: an accessible, comprehensive database that has shaped how scientists discover and engage with the literature. But as research demands evolve and the volume of published work continues to surge, PubMed’s shortcomings as a tool for understanding the experimental landscape and driving new research are becoming increasingly apparent. In this blog, we reflect on PubMed’s role in research and look to the future to see how innovative new tools might address its limitations. 

The Strengths of PubMed – Why It’s a Staple

PubMed is an almost ubiquitous tool for biomedical research. If you ask a scientist when they first heard about PubMed, it was probably as early as their first biology class in college. As such, PubMed is deeply ingrained in biomedical research and is synonymous with literature reviews.  

Although it was initially developed as the online portal for MEDLINE, the National Library of Medicine’s bibliographic database, PubMed’s accessibility and scope quickly led to it becoming something more vital: a search engine. Early adoption by the scientific community, along with the NIH stamp of approval, meant that PubMed swiftly became the go-to resource for researchers exploring the literature.

Indeed, one of the first things we learn as young scientists in training is how to use PubMed. Free access to PubMed’s extensive database (38 million citations and counting¹) is a powerful tool, and since its inception in 1996, PubMed has established a reputation as a trusted and dependable resource. Despite indexing around 30,000 journals, PubMed maintains selective criteria for journals to be included in the database, although predatory journals can still slip through the cracks². The launch in 2000 of PubMed Central, which hosts open-access journal articles as well as simply indexing them, has further cemented the view of PubMed as the heart of peer-reviewed research online. 

Where PubMed Falls Short

Today, PubMed is synonymous with literature review and is central to many researchers' workflows. However, the database and its search tool were developed in 1996, and it often still feels like it. Here are some key areas where PubMed falls short: 

1. Search Interface - The interface is outdated and unintuitive - the fact that students and early-career researchers need training in how to use PubMed is emblematic of its complicated and archaic design.
2. Precision - While one of the strengths of PubMed is in its huge catalogue of research articles, searches often return thousands of results with little to no relevance to your query. For researchers managing tight deadlines, sifting through vast quantities of extraneous information to find relevant papers can be an ineffective drain on productivity. Overwhelming users with volume, in the absence of any guidance and precision, can be actively detrimental to efforts to understand the literature and obtain a clear picture of the research landscape. 
3. Filtering Results - At a time when AI-driven tools are making exploring large amounts of information faster and more precise than ever, PubMed’s rigidity can feel like a step back. While PubMed allows you to filter your search results, this is restricted to the date of publication and article type. Without the ability to search for specific experimental models and conditions, planning in vivo experiments can require weeks of work manually sifting through search results.

Bridging the Gap – The Need for Innovation

Although PubMed will always have a place in our hearts, researchers need search tools with practical functionality and actionable insights.  As the pace of research accelerates and the rate at which science is published continues to climb³, we need tools that go beyond traditional database searches. While comprehensive content remains crucial, the next generation of platforms must also prioritize intuitive usability and efficiency. Researchers are no longer just seeking access to information - we need streamlined search experiences that integrate cutting-edge technology to produce results tailored to our specific needs. The future of research requires tools that adapt to our workflows, not the other way around.

ModernVivo – Elevating the Research Experience

Enter ModernVivo: a forward-thinking platform designed to elevate research efficiency in ways that traditional tools like PubMed simply can't match. With a sleek, intuitive interface and AI-powered curation at its core, ModernVivo transforms how professionals engage with biomedical data. Instead of the vague approach of keyword searches, researchers get precision filtering tailored to their needs. The platform seamlessly integrates multiple databases into a unified search experience, ensuring no critical study is overlooked. Automated literature reviews provide detailed, protocol-specific recommendations in minutes, eliminating the need for researchers to spend weeks or months sifting through PubMed. 

Get in touch with the ModernVivo team today and book a demo to see how you can make your in vivo experimental design literature reviews faster, more precise, and more efficient.

References

1. About. PubMed. Accessed April 17, 2025. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/about/

2. Manca A, Moher D, Cugusi L, Dvir Z, Deriu F. How predatory journals leak into PubMed. CMAJ Can Med Assoc J. 2018;190(35):E1042-E1045. doi:10.1503/cmaj.180154

3. The strain on scientific publishing - ProQuest. Accessed April 17, 2025. https://www.proquest.com/openview/009ef80a1001eb54b0ddb68cb5bb9940/1?cbl=6535867&pq-origsite=gscholar

‍

^{AI Disclosure: Some of this content was generated with assistance from AI tools for copywriting.}