Article1994

Performance of online biomedical databases in rheumatology.

César Ramos-Remus · Maria Eugenia Suarez-Almazor · Marlene Dorgan · Amparo Gomez-Vargas · Anthony Sciance Russell

26 citations0/0 files storedPubMed

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Meta-analysis and systematic reviews scientometrics and bibliometrics research Information Retrieval and Search Behavior

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.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 26 citations exist upstream.

Cited by

2015Better duplicate detection for systematic reviewers: evaluation of Systematic Review Assistant-Deduplication Module 2009Evidence-Based Medicine, Systematic Reviews, and Guidelines in Interventional Pain Management: Part 3: Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Randomized Trials 2000Identifying Clinical Trials in the Medical Literature with Electronic Databases 2008Evidence-Based Medicine, Systematic Reviews, and Guidelines in Interventional Pain Management: Part 6. Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Observational Studies 2004Searching multiple databases for systematic reviews: added value or diminishing returns?1998Complementary use of the SciSearch database for improved biomedical information searching.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.