Performances of 27 MEDLINE systems tested by searches with clinical questions.
Performances of 27 MEDLINE systems tested by searches with clinical questions.
复制标题
通过临床问题搜索测试了 27 个 MEDLINE 系统的性能。
DOI：
10.1136/jamia.1994.95236159
复制
发表时间：
1994
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Willan,AR
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Haynes,RB;Walker,CJ;McKibbon,KA;Johnston,ME;Willan,AR
目的：比较国家医学图书馆（NLM）MEDLINE数据库的在线和光盘（CD-ROM）版本的性能。设计：分析性调查。设置：健康信息研究单位，麦克马斯特大学，汉密尔顿，安大略，加拿大。干预：临床问题来自18个搜索最初自发进行的病房和诊所的临床医生谁使用了感恩医学4.0版。翻译临床医生的检索策略，以满足13个在线和14个CD-ROM MEDLINE系统的具体要求。一位资深图书馆员和供应商代表根据临床医生的问题构建了独立的搜索。图书管理员和临床医生检索在每个系统中运行，图书管理员以命令模式运行，临床医生以菜单模式运行（如可用）。供应商搜索仅通过供应商自己的系统进行。主要衡量标准：检索到的相关和不相关引文数量、成本（仅适用于在线系统）和时间。结果：系统在所有检索方面都有很大的不同，图书管理员和临床医生的检索也是如此，关于检索到的相关和不相关引文的数量（p> 0.001）和每次相关引用的成本（p= 0.012），但不是关于每次搜索的时间。根据检索到的最高相关引文数量和最低不相关引文数量的综合排名，SilverPlatter CD-ROM MEDLINE临床期刊子集在图书馆员检索方面表现最好，而PaperChase在线系统在临床医生检索方面表现最好。对于成本每相关的引文检索，对话的知识指数表现最好的图书馆员和临床医生search.Conclusions：有竞争MEDLINE系统的性能有很大的差异，性能受到搜索策略，这是由图书馆员或临床医生的设想。
Objective: To compare the performances of online and compact-disc (CD-ROM) versions of the National Library of Medicine's (NLM) MEDLINE database.Design: Analytic survey.Setting: Health Information Research Unit, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.Intervention: Clinical questions were drawn from 18 searches originally conducted spontaneously by clinicians from wards and clinics who had used Grateful Med Version 4.0. Clinicians' search strategies were translated to meet the specific requirements of 13 online and 14 CD-ROM MEDLINE systems. A senior librarian and vendors' representatives constructed independent searches from the clinicians' questions. The librarian and clinician searches were run through each system, in command mode for the librarian and menu mode for clinicians, when available. Vendor searches were run through the vendors' own systems only.Main Measurements: Numbers of relevant and irrelevant citations retrieved, cost (for online systems only), and time.Results: Systems varied substantially for all searches, and for librarian and clinician searches separately, with respect to the numbers of relevant and irrelevant citations retrieved (p> 0.001 for both) and the cost per relevant citation (p= 0.012), but not with respect to the time per search. Based on combined rankings for the highest number of relevant and the lowest number of irrelevant citations retrieved, the SilverPlatter CD-ROM MEDLINE clinical journal subset performed best for librarian searches, while the PaperChase online system worked best for clinician searches. For cost per relevant citation retrieved, Dialog's Knowledge Index performed best for both librarian and clinician searches.Conclusions: There were substantial differences in the performances of competing MEDLINE systems, and performance was affected by search strategy, which was conceived by a librarian or by clinicians.