PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 9796370

[Internet biomedical databases: the MEDLINE paradigm. Users' guide].

M Tringali
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The Medline database is now available into a wide number of biomedical websites. Clinicians and scientists can now access the most important bibliographic file in medicine directly from their desktop. Medline availability on the Internet can enhance effectiveness and efficiency of medical activities. Real usefulness of Medline and other databases stands on the relevance and validity of the information content that can be obtained at the least work (and cost) for the user. In order to retrieve really useful information, knowledge of some methodological issues related to bibliographic searching is mandatory to the final user. The rising number of Medline providers on Internet occurring during 1996 and 1997 is a proof that the "ideal" world-wide-Medline has not arrived yet.

Explore related subjects

Information Storage and RetrievalInternetMEDLINEEnglish AbstractJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

M Tringali. 1998. [Internet biomedical databases: the MEDLINE paradigm. Users' guide].. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9796370/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2003

[Searching for primary studies for inclusion in systematic reviews].

Searching for relevant literature is an important process when carrying out a systematic review. Although general-purpose literature databases such as MEDLINE contain a huge number of articles, only a small fraction of these report evidence applicable to a systematic review. Development of an optimal search strategy giving priority to minimizing the number of important articles not retrieved is thus desirable. The retrieval of relevant studies cited in literature databases can be substantially enhanced by selected combinations of indexing terms and textwords. In order to improve the likelihood of retrieving studies relevant to a specific clinical question, precise database search skills are required: creation of an explicit, well formulated question using PI (E) CO, and development of a list of optimal indexing terms such as MeSH and textwords. However, even a search strategy yielding maximum sensitivity could omit some relevant articles. Consequently, hand-searching for articles in key or unindexed journals is still necessary to identify all relevant studies.

Information Storage and Retrieval↗
PubMed2002

A comparison of handsearching versus MEDLINE searching to identify reports of randomized controlled trials.

This study aims to compare handsearching to a basic MEDLINE search for the identification of reports of randomized trials in specialized health care journals. Twenty-two specialized health care journals, published in the U.K., were handsearched for all reports of controlled trials (as defined by the Cochrane Collaboration). The reports of trials, which were judged to be definitely randomized, were identified from a random sample of three years per journal and form one element of this study. A MEDLINE search using the publication type terms 'randomized controlled trial' and 'controlled clinical trial' was also performed for the same journal years. The reports of trials retrieved by handsearching were then compared against those retrieved from the MEDLINE search, to identify differences in retrieval between the two techniques. Reports of randomized trials identified by the MEDLINE search but not found by handsearching were individually assessed to see if they met the Cochrane eligibility criteria for a report of a randomized trial. A total of 714 reports of randomized trials were found by using a combination of both handsearching and MEDLINE searching. Of these, 369 (52 per cent) were identified only by handsearching and 32 (4 per cent) were identified only by MEDLINE searching. Of the reports identified only by handsearching, 252 had no MEDLINE record, of which 232 (92 per cent) were meeting abstracts or published in supplements; 117 (25 per cent) of the 462 reports of randomized trials which had a MEDLINE record were missed by the electronic search because they did not have either of the publication type terms 'randomized controlled trial' or 'controlled clinical trial'. This proportion varied depending on when the reports of randomized trials were published (that is, before or after the introduction of the MEDLINE publication type terms above). The highest additional yield from handsearching compared to MEDLINE searching was for reports of randomized trials published prior to 1991 and from handsearching the non-MEDLINE indexed parts of a journal. The results of this study suggest that a combination of MEDLINE and handsearching is required to identify adequately reports of randomized trials.

Information Storage and Retrieval↗