HOW GOOD ARE CLINICAL MEDLINE SEARCHES - A COMPARATIVE-STUDY OF CLINICAL END-USER AND LIBRARIAN SEARCHES
HOW GOOD ARE CLINICAL MEDLINE SEARCHES - A COMPARATIVE-STUDY OF CLINICAL END-USER AND LIBRARIAN SEARCHES
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/0010-4809(90)90042-b
复制
发表时间：
1990-12-01
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
FITZGERALD, D
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
MCKIBBON, KA;HAYNES, RB;FITZGERALD, D
本研究的目的是确定由医生、实习医生和专家检索者（临床医生和图书馆员）进行的MEDLINE检索的质量。它的设计是一个独立的重复分析调查设置的自助服务在线搜索从内科病房，重症监护室，冠心病监护室，急诊室，门诊在300张病床的教学医院。参与者都是M.D.临床办事员、内务部和在上述环境中负责患者的主治人员。所有参与者的干预措施包括2小时的小组课程和1小时的MEDLINE搜索练习（GRATEFUL MED），然后免费访问MEDLINE。从104个随机选择的新手检索中，将检索问题提供给13名具有既往检索经验的临床医生中的1名和3名图书馆员中的1名，以进行独立检索（三重检索）。将来自三次检索的这些唯一引用的测量值和主要结果发送给专家临床医生，以评定相关性（7分量表）。计算召回率（从单个检索中检索到的相关引文数量除以同一主题所有检索中的相关引文总数）和精确度（每次检索中检索到的相关引文比例）。图书管理员在这两方面都明显优于新手。图书馆员的记忆力与有经验的终端用户相当，准确度更高。出乎意料的是，只有20%的相关引文被三个集合中的一个以上的搜索检索到，结论是经过短暂培训后，通过GRATEFUL MED在MEDLINE上进行搜索的新手具有相对较低的召回率和准确率。记忆力随着经验的增加而提高，但精确度仍然不理想。需要进一步的研究来确定“学习曲线”，评估培训干预措施，并探索不同搜索的相关引文的非重叠检索。
The objective of this study was to determine the quality of MEDLINE searches done by physicians, physician trainees, and expert searchers (clinicians and librarians). Its design was an analytic survey with independent replication in a setting of self-service online searching from medical wards, an intensive care unit, a coronary care unit, an emergency room, and an ambulatory clinic in a 300-bed teaching hospital. Participating were all M.D. clinical clerks, house, and attending staff responsible for patients in the above settings. Intervention for all participants consisted of a 2-h small group class and 1-h practice session on MEDLINE searching (GRATEFUL MED) before free access to MEDLINE. Search questions from 104 randomly selected novice searches were given to 1 of 13 clinicians with prior search experience and 1 of 3 librarians to run independent searches (triplicated searches). Measurements and main results from these unique citations of the triplicated searches were sent to expert clinicians to rate for relevance (7-point scale). Recall (number of relevant citations retrieved from an individual search divided by the total number of relevant citations from all searches on the same topic) and precision (proportion of relevant citations retrieved in each search) were calculated. Librarians were significantly better than novices for both. Librarians had equivalent recall to, and better precision than, experienced end-users. Unexpectedly, only 20% of relevant citations were retrieved by more than one search of the set of three, with the conclusion that novice searchers on MEDLINE via GRATEFUL MED after brief training have relatively low recall and precision. Recall improves with experience but precision remains suboptimal. Further research is needed to determine the "learning curve," evaluate training interventions, and explore the non-overlapping retrieval of relevant citations by different searches.