These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Performance of online biomedical databases in rheumatology.
    Author: Ramos-Remus C, Suarez-Almazor M, Dorgan M, Gomez-Vargas A, Russell AS.
    Journal: J Rheumatol; 1994 Oct; 21(10):1912-21. PubMed ID: 7837159.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVE: To compare the performance of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and BIOSIS in selected rheumatology topics. METHODS: Online literature searches were conducted with regard to the epidemiology of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), and ankylosing spondylitis (AS), as well as for 3 specific questions representing clinical, clinical/laboratory, and therapeutic topics in rheumatology. Total number of citations retrieved, type and language of publication, percentage of contribution from rheumatology journals, and degree of overlap among the databases were recorded. Publications retrieved for the 3 specific questions were also graded for relevance. RESULTS: For 1991, each online biomedical database (OBD) retrieved more than 1,100 citations for RA, over 600 for SLE, and over 110 for AS. For the epidemiology subtopic, fewer than 25% of the citations were retrieved by more than one of the databases. About 3/4 of the citations obtained for the specific search questions were retrieved by a single database. No major differences were observed among databases in relation to number of relevance of citations retrieved. Over 60% of the papers assessed had low relevance in relation to the topic of the search. Efficiency was estimated as the percentage of all relevant citations retrieved by each OBD. Results varied according to the topic, but in most cases each database retrieved at least 50% of the relevant citations. About 45% of the citations retrieved for the 3 search questions were published in nonrheumatology journals. CONCLUSION: No database was superior in all respects. The majority of the citations were retrieved by a single database. A high percentage of the articles retrieved were not relevant, implying low specificity. If a comprehensive online search in rheumatology is required, 2 or more databases should be utilized.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]