{"id":6172,"date":"2016-09-02T18:41:09","date_gmt":"2016-09-02T18:41:09","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blog.lib.uiowa.edu\/needtoknow\/?p=1017"},"modified":"2016-09-02T18:41:09","modified_gmt":"2016-09-02T18:41:09","slug":"plant-based-foods-a-tricky-pubmed-search-revised-2016-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blog.lib.uiowa.edu\/combo\/2016\/09\/02\/plant-based-foods-a-tricky-pubmed-search-revised-2016-2\/","title":{"rendered":"Plant-Based Foods \u2013 A Tricky PubMed Search \u2013 Revised 2016"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/p>\n

\"HardinLib0902\"<\/a><\/p>\n

By Eric Rumsey, Janna Lawrence and Xiaomei Gu<\/p>\n

As we discussed in an <\/span>article earlier this year<\/span><\/a>, searching for nutrition in PubMed has improved greatly since NLM brought the subject together in one explosion (<\/span>Diet, Food, and Nutrition<\/span><\/i>). This ability to search the field of nutrition easily has helped in searching for plant-based foods [PBFs] in some ways. But in other ways, it\u2019s still as difficult as it was when we wrote our 2013 article on the same topic.<\/span><\/p>\n

The basic problem in searching for PBFs, just as it was before the addition of the new explosion, is that a large proportion of PBFs are not in the <\/span>Food<\/span><\/i> explosion, but are only in <\/span>Plants<\/span><\/i>, and not in <\/span>Food<\/span><\/i>. So the fact that <\/span>Food<\/span><\/i> is part of the new inclusive explosion doesn\u2019t make it any easier to search for PBFs.<\/span><\/p>\n

In addition to the fact that most fruits and vegetables are treated as plants instead of foods, another problem in searching for them is that almost all of them are put under their botanical, Latin names, that are not recognizable to most people. Here are some examples, all of which are in the plant-taxonomic branch of the MeSH tree:<\/span><\/p>\n