Literature DB >> 1878827

Comparison of search strategies on CD Plus/MEDLINE.

L C Wright1, H J Sutherland, J I Jackson, J E Till.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare two strategies for searching MEDLINE using the CD Plus/MEDLINE program on compact disc.
DESIGN: Comparison study.
INTERVENTIONS: Two search strategies were designed and executed for each of two topics (patient recruitment to clinical trials and attitudes of patients, the public and health care professionals toward clinical trials). Strategy A: searches based on key words selected from the medical subject heading (MeSH) tree structure. Strategy B: searches based on MeSH terms most frequently used to index a known set of relevant articles. Defined search restrictions were then applied. The effects of the restrictions on the absolute number of citations retrieved and on the proportion of relevant citations were assessed. OUTCOME MEASURES: Number of articles retrieved, number of relevant articles, precision and recall of each search strategy and overlap between strategies. MAIN
RESULTS: Strategy A produced more citations than strategy B (recruitment 147 v. 38, attitude 366 v. 57) but had more inappropriate citations (recruitment 75 v. 17, attitude 265 v. 25). Both strategies produced 73 relevant recruitment citations and 101 relevant attitude citations. In the recruitment search although the precision did not differ significantly between strategies A and B the difference in recall was significant (98.6% v. 28.8% respectively, p less than 0.0001). In the attitude search strategy A had a lower precision than strategy B (27.6% v. 56.1%, p less than 0.0001) but a much higher recall (100% v. 31.7%, p less than 0.0001).
CONCLUSIONS: Strategy A would be more valuable to researchers doing extensive reviews, whereas strategy B would be useful for the busy clinician who simply wants a few appropriate references quickly and is willing to sacrifice comprehensive retrieval in the interest of efficiency.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1991        PMID: 1878827      PMCID: PMC1335828     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  CMAJ        ISSN: 0820-3946            Impact factor:   8.262


  10 in total

1.  Index Medicus. A century of medical citation.

Authors:  J Kunz
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1979-01-26       Impact factor: 56.272

2.  The retrieval of randomized clinical trials in liver disease from the medical literature. A comparison of MEDLARS and manual methods.

Authors:  T Poynard; H O Conn
Journal:  Control Clin Trials       Date:  1985-12

3.  Computer searching of the medical literature. An evaluation of MEDLINE searching systems.

Authors:  R B Haynes; K A McKibbon; C J Walker; J Mousseau; L M Baker; D Fitzgerald; G Guyatt; G R Norman
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  1985-11       Impact factor: 25.391

4.  An evaluation of four end-user systems for searching MEDLINE.

Authors:  M D Bonham; L L Nelson
Journal:  Bull Med Libr Assoc       Date:  1988-04

5.  Online access to MEDLINE in clinical settings. A study of use and usefulness.

Authors:  R B Haynes; K A McKibbon; C J Walker; N Ryan; D Fitzgerald; M F Ramsden
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  1990-01-01       Impact factor: 25.391

6.  Using MEDLINE to peruse the literature.

Authors:  P Hewitt; T C Chalmers
Journal:  Control Clin Trials       Date:  1985-03

7.  PaperChase: a computer program to search the medical literature.

Authors:  G L Horowitz; H L Bleich
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1981-10-15       Impact factor: 91.245

8.  The retrieval of randomized clinical trials in liver diseases from the medical literature: manual versus MEDLARS searches.

Authors:  F Bernstein
Journal:  Control Clin Trials       Date:  1988-03

9.  Searching MEDLINE for randomized clinical trials involving care of the newborn.

Authors:  H Kirpalani; B Schmidt; K A McKibbon; R B Haynes; J C Sinclair
Journal:  Pediatrics       Date:  1989-04       Impact factor: 7.124

10.  PaperChase. Self-service bibliographic retrieval.

Authors:  G L Horowitz; J D Jackson; H L Bleich
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1983-11-11       Impact factor: 56.272

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.