Correo Electrónico
DNINFOA - SIA
Bibliotecas
Convocatorias
Identidad U.N.
Publicado
Agreement between Medline searches using the Medline-CD-Rom and Internet PubMed, BioMedNet, Medscape and Gateway search-engines
Concordancia de las búsquedas de Medline utilizando el Medline en disco compacto y los motores de búsqueda de PubMed, BioMedNet, Medscape y Gateway
Palabras clave:
Medline, databases, Pubmed, reproducibility of results, information storage and retrieval, evidence-based medicine (en)Medline, Pubmed, bases de datos, reproducibilidad de resultados, recuperación, información, medicina basada en evidencia (es)
Descargas
OBJECTIVES: To compare the information obtained from the Medline database using Internet commercial search engines with that obtained from a compact disc (Medline-CD).
METHODS: An agreement study was carried out based on 101 clinical scenarios provided by specialists in internal medicine, pharmacy, gynaecology-obstetrics, surgery and paediatrics. 175 search strategies were employed using the connector AND plus text within quotation marks. The search was limited to 1991-1999. Internet search-engines were selected by common criteria. Identical search strategies were independently applied to and masked from Internet search engines, as well as the Medline-CD.
RESULTS: 3,488 articles were obtained using 129 search strategies. Agreement with the Medline-CD was 54% for PubMed, 57% for Gateway, 54% for Medscape and 65% for BioMedNet. The highest agreement rate for a given speciality (paediatrics) was 78,1% for BioMedNet, having greater -/- than +/+ agreement.
CONCLUSIONS: Even though free access to Medline has encouraged the boom and growth of evidence-based medicine, these results must be considered within the context of which search engine was selected for doing the searches. The internet search engines studied showed a poor agreement with the Medline-CD, the rate of agreement differing according to speciality, thus significantly affecting searches and their reproducibility. Software designed for conducting Medline database searches, including the Medline-CD, must be standardised and validated.
OBJETIVOS: Comparar la información obtenida de la base de datos Medline a través de los motores de búsqueda de Internet comerciales, con aquella obtenida de la base de datos en disco compacto (Medline-CD).
MÉTODOS: Estudio de concordancia en los resultados de las búsquedas, hechas a partir de 101 escenarios clínicos sugeridos por especialistas de medicina interna, farmacia, ginecología y obstetricia, cirugía y pediatría. Se realizaron 175 estrategias de búsqueda utilizando el conector AND y texto entrecomillado. La búsqueda se limitó al periodo 1991-1999. Los motores de búsqueda de Internet se seleccionaron a partir de criterios comunes. Las estrategias de búsqueda fueron idénticas y se aplicaron de manera independiente y enmascarada tanto en los motores de búsqueda de Internet como en Medline-CD.
RESULTADOS: Se obtuvieron 3 488 artículos utilizando 129 estrategias de búsqueda. La concordancia con Medline-CD fue del 54% PubMed, 57% Gateway, 54% Medscape and 65% BioMedNet. El mayor nivel de acuerdo por especialidad (pediatría) fue de 78,1% para BioMedNet, teniendo mayor acuerdo -/- que +/+.
CONCLUSIONES: Aunque el acceso libre a Medline ha potencializado el desarrollo de la Medicina Basada en Evidencia, los resultados de las búsquedas deben ser considerados a la luz de cuáles motores de búsqueda se utilizaron. Los diferentes motores de búsqueda tuvieron una pobre concordancia con Medline-CD, siendo diferencial el nivel de acuerdo, por especialidad. Esto afecta la reproducibilidad de las estrategias de búsqueda. Todo el software que se utilice para llevar a cabo búsquedas en la base de datos Medline, incluido el de Medline-CD, debe ser estandarizado y validado.
Referencias
Wilson P. How to find the good and avoid the bad or ugly: a short guide to tools for rating quality of health information on the internet. BMJ. 2002;324:598-602
Bowden VM, Kromer ME, and Tobia RC. Assessment of physicians' information needs in five Texas counties. Bull Med Libr Assoc. 1994 Apr; 82(2):189-96.
Modlin M. Medical questions? Medline has answers. American Libraries. 1999; 29(10): 40-43.
Haynes RB, Wilczynski NL, McKibbon KA, Walker-Dilks CJ, Sinclair JC. Developing optimal search strategies for detecting clinically sound studies in MEDLINE. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 1994; 1: 447-458
Felix Free Medline Page. Updated 6th October, 1998. [Internet]. Available at http://www.akdeniz.edu.tr/tip/gcerrahi/drfelix. Visited in September, 2001 at http://www.beaker.iupui.edu/drfelix
Self PC, Sayed EN, Henry JK. Bridging the information gap" for Virginia public health nurses. Public Health Nurs. 1997 Jun;14(3):151-5.
National Library of Medicine, PubMed. [Internet] Available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed. Visited in September, 2001
National Library of Medicine, Gateway. [Internet]. Available at http://gateway.nlm.nih.gov/gw/Cmd. Visited in October, 2001
WebMD Medscape Health Network, Medline. [Internet]. Available at http://www.medscape.com/px/urlinfo. Visited in October, 2001
ScienceDirect®, trademark of Elsevier B.V., Medline. [Internet]. Available at http://www.bmn.com/. Visited in September, 2001
Silver Platter International N.V. Adobe Systems Incorporated. 1991-1999.
Sackett D, Straus S, Richardson S, Rosenberg W, Haynes R. Evidence Based Medicine. How to Practice and Teach. 2nd. Edition. New York: Churchill Livingstone. 2000. p.p. 29-65.
Pérez A, Rodríguez N, Fabián J, Ramírez G. Software: Tamaño de la Muestra. Versión 1.1. Pontificia Universidad Javeriana. Facultad de Medicina. Unidad de Epidemiología Clínica y Estadística.
Sackett D, Straus S, Richardson S, Rosenberg W, Haynes R. Evidence Based Medicine. How to Practice and Teach. 2nd. Edition. New York: Churchill Livingstone; 2000. p. 1-5.
Cumulated Index Medicus. Available only in print. National Library of Medicine. [Internet]. Available at http://www.nlm.nih.gov/tsd/serials/. Visited in October, 2001
Guyatt G. Preface. In Guyatt G, Rennie D. Users' Guides to the Medical Literature: A Manual for Evidence-Based Clinical Practice. Chicago: American Medical Association, 2002. 736 p.
Ely JW, Osheroff JA, Ebell M, Chambliss ML, Vinson D, Stevermer J, Pifer E. Obstacles to answering doctors' questions about patient care with evidence: qualitative study. BMJ. 2002;324:710.
Purcell G, Wilson P, Delamothe T. The quality of health information on the Internet. BMJ. 2002; 324: 557-558.
Gagliardi A, Jadad AR. Examination of instruments used to rate quality of health information on the Internet: chronicle of a voyage with an unclear destination. BMJ. 2002; 324: 569-573.
Eysenbach G, Köhler C. How do consumers search for and appraise health information on the world wide web? Qualitative study using focus groups, usability tests and in-depth interviews. BMJ. 2002; 324: 573-577.
Wilson P, Risk A. How to find the good and avoid the bad or ugly: a short guide to tools for rating quality of health information on the Internet Commentary: On the way to quality. BMJ. 2002; 324: 598-602.
Dikersin K, Scherer R, Lefebvre C. Systematic Reviews: identifying relevant studies for systematic reviews. BMJ. 1994;309: 1286-1291.
Streiner D, Norman G. Health Measurement Scales. Oxford University Press Inc: New York; 1998. p.121.
Cómo citar
APA
ACM
ACS
ABNT
Chicago
Harvard
IEEE
MLA
Turabian
Vancouver
Descargar cita
Visitas a la página del resumen del artículo
Descargas
Licencia
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución 4.0.
Esta revista provee acceso libre inmediato a su contenido bajo el principio de que hacer disponible gratuitamente investigación al publico apoya a un mayor intercambio de conocimiento global.
Todos los contenidos de esta revista, excepto dónde está identificado, están publicados bajo una Licencia Creative Commons Atribución 4.0.
