Literature DB >> 9849544

Assessment of bibliographic databases performance in information retrieval for occupational and environmental toxicology.

J F Gehanno1, C Paris, B Thirion, J F Caillard.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficiency of the major bibliographic databases by assessing the percentage of references among the total literature available that can be retrieved from each database. We also evaluated the best database combinations to carry out an exhaustive search.
METHODS: BIOSIS, EMBASE, MEDLINE, NIOSH-TIC, and TOXLINE were searched on two topics: allergy to latex and asbestos and mesothelioma, in the title, abstract, or keywords (textwords). This search was performed for the years 1994 and 1995. All the records were classified by journal and author's name and were verified for each record whether or not it was indexed in each database. Statistical analysis was performed with chi 2 test.
RESULTS: 777 articles in 510 issues were found. The efficiency of each database (percentage of articles recovered) and of combinations varied between 11% and 63% for one database and between 42% and 86% for a combination of two databases. The reasons why these differences exist between databases, and within a database, between two different subjects or two different years are reported.
CONCLUSION: Firstly, it is not advisable to assert that a bibliography is complete when only one database is searched. Secondly, the efficiency of the databases may be quite different. Finally, it is suggested that the best way to be as exhaustive as possible is to search two or more databases-for example, in EMBASE and TOXLINE, or to a lesser extent EMBASE and MEDLINE. This seems to be the best compromise solution between time consumed for searching and efficiency.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9849544      PMCID: PMC1757629          DOI: 10.1136/oem.55.8.562

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Occup Environ Med        ISSN: 1351-0711            Impact factor:   4.402


  6 in total

1.  Costs of medline and CD-ROM searching.

Authors:  B Thirion; S J Darmoni; N Moore
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1992-08-01       Impact factor: 79.321

Review 2.  The electronic information revolution and how to exploit it.

Authors:  J J Cox; K J Dawson; K E Hobbs
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  1992-10       Impact factor: 6.939

Review 3.  Information retrieval in medicine: state of the art.

Authors:  W R Hersh; R A Greenes
Journal:  MD Comput       Date:  1990 Sep-Oct

4.  Comparison and evaluation of nine bibliographic databases concerning adverse drug reactions.

Authors:  O Biarez; B Sarrut; C G Doreau; J Etienne
Journal:  DICP       Date:  1991-10

5.  Searching for information on toxicological data of chemical substances in selected bibliographic databases--selection of essential databases for toxicological researches.

Authors:  H Ludl; L H Schöpe; I Mangelsdorf
Journal:  Chemosphere       Date:  1996-03       Impact factor: 7.086

Review 6.  How to read a paper. The Medline database.

Authors:  T Greenhalgh
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1997-07-19
  6 in total
  12 in total

1.  Comparison of bibliographic databases for information on the rehabilitation of people with severe mental illness.

Authors:  A J Brettle; A F Long
Journal:  Bull Med Libr Assoc       Date:  2001-10

2.  How to select publications on occupational health: the usefulness of Medline and the impact factor.

Authors:  J F Gehanno; B Thirion
Journal:  Occup Environ Med       Date:  2000-10       Impact factor: 4.402

3.  Comparing structural perspectives on Medical Informatics: EMBASE vs. MEDLINE.

Authors:  Theodore Allan Morris
Journal:  AMIA Annu Symp Proc       Date:  2003

4.  A search strategy for occupational health intervention studies.

Authors:  J Verbeek; J Salmi; I Pasternack; M Jauhiainen; I Laamanen; F Schaafsma; C Hulshof; F van Dijk
Journal:  Occup Environ Med       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 4.402

5.  EMBASE versus MEDLINE for family medicine searches: can MEDLINE searches find the forest or a tree?

Authors:  Thad Wilkins; Ralph A Gillies; Kathy Davies
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 3.275

6.  Precision and recall of search strategies for identifying studies on return-to-work in Medline.

Authors:  Jean-François Gehanno; Laetitia Rollin; Tony Le Jean; Alexandre Louvel; Stefan Darmoni; William Shaw
Journal:  J Occup Rehabil       Date:  2009-04-21

7.  Embedding a Medical Search Engine Within an Electronic Health Record.

Authors:  Patricia Alafaireet; Jeff Belden; Matt Botkin; Karl Kochendorfer; Robin Kruse; Dylan Strecker; Jayne Williams
Journal:  Mo Med       Date:  2017 Jul-Aug

8.  Identification of risk conditions for the development of adrenal disorders: how optimized PubMed search strategies makes the difference.

Authors:  Federica Guaraldi; Mirko Parasiliti-Caprino; Riccardo Goggi; Guglielmo Beccuti; Silvia Grottoli; Emanuela Arvat; Lucia Ghizzoni; Ezio Ghigo; Roberta Giordano; Davide Gori
Journal:  Endocrine       Date:  2014-05-25       Impact factor: 3.633

9.  Search strings for the study of putative occupational determinants of disease.

Authors:  Stefano Mattioli; Francesca Zanardi; Alberto Baldasseroni; Frederieke Schaafsma; Robin M T Cooke; Gianpiero Mancini; Mauro Fierro; Chiara Santangelo; Andrea Farioli; Serenella Fucksia; Stefania Curti; Francesco S Violante; Jos Verbeek
Journal:  Occup Environ Med       Date:  2009-10-09       Impact factor: 4.402

10.  Is the coverage of Google Scholar enough to be used alone for systematic reviews.

Authors:  Jean-François Gehanno; Laetitia Rollin; Stefan Darmoni
Journal:  BMC Med Inform Decis Mak       Date:  2013-01-09       Impact factor: 2.796

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.