Comparative evaluation of the performance of online databases in answering toxicology queries

Robinson, Lyn; McIlwaine, I. C.; Copestake, Philip; Anderson, Charles A.

doi:10.1016/s0268-4012(99)00056-0

Cited by 9 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Thirty‐seven studies were excluded from this review 25–61 . Eighteen studies compared data sources for other drug information, 26,29–33,37,38,42,45,52,53,55,57–61 eight did not present the results for identifying information on adverse effects, 25,27,28,40,41,47,51,54 eight were descriptive studies, 34,35,39,44,46,49,50,56 two studies did not contain enough information 43,48 and one study included consumer information sources only 36 …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sources of information on adverse effects: a systematic review

Golder

Loke

2010

Health Info Libraries J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Systematic reviews can provide accurate and timely information on adverse effects. An essential part of the systematic review process is a thorough search of the literature. This often requires searching many different sources. However, it is unclear which sources are most effective at providing information on adverse effects. Objective: To identify and summarise studies that have evaluated sources of information on adverse effects. Methods: Studies were located by searching in 10 databases as well as by reference checking, hand searching, citation searching and contacting experts. Results: A total of 6218 citations were retrieved yielding 19 studies which met the inclusion criteria. The included studies tended to focus on the adverse effects of drug interventions and compare the relative value of different sources using the number of relevant references retrieved from searches of each source. However, few studies were conducted recently with a large sample of references. Conclusions: This review suggests that EMBASE, Derwent Drug File, MEDLINE and industry submissions may potentially provide the greatest number of relevant references for information on adverse effects of drugs. However, a systematic evaluation of the current value of different sources of information for adverse effects is urgently required.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sources of information on adverse effects: a systematic review

Golder

Loke

2010

Health Info Libraries J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Coverage was assessed by carrying out a failure analysis, as a way of identifying relevant documents which are present in a system but have not (for whatever reason) been retrieved, augmenting the list of retrieved items, following the method of Robinson et al (2000).…”

Section: Ap 576mentioning

confidence: 99%

Is Google enough? Comparison of an internet search engine with academic library resources

Brophy

Bawden²

2005

Aslib Proceedings

147

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose -The purpose of the study was to compare an internet search engine, Google, with appropriate library databases and systems, in order to assess the relative value, strengths and weaknesses of the two sorts of system. Design/methodology/approach -A case study approach was used, with detailed analysis and failure checking of results. The performance of the two systems was assessed in terms of coverage, unique records, precision, and quality and accessibility of results. A novel form of relevance assessment, based on the work of Saracevic and others was devised. Findings -Google is superior for coverage and accessibility. Library systems are superior for quality of results. Precision is similar for both systems. Good coverage requires use of both, as both have many unique items. Improving the skills of the searcher is likely to give better results from the library systems, but not from Google. Research limitations/implications -Only four case studies were included. These were limited to the kind of queries likely to be searched by university students. Library resources were limited to those in two UK academic libraries. Only the basic Google web search functionality was used, and only the top ten records examined. Practical implications -The results offer guidance for those providing support and training for use of these retrieval systems, and also provide evidence for debates on the "Google phenomenon". Originality/value -This is one of the few studies which provide evidence on the relative performance of internet search engines and library databases, and the only one to conduct such in-depth case studies. The method for the assessment of relevance is novel.

show abstract

“…These have been the subject of many comparisons and evaluations regarding their value in providing pharmaceutical information (e.g., Barillot, Sarrut, & Doreau, 1997; Bawden & Brock, 1985; Biarez, Sarrut, Doreau, & Etienne, 1991; Brown, 1998; Fishman, Stone, and DiPaula, 1996; Flory, 2002; Kruse, 1983; Robinson, McIlwaine, Copestake, & Anderson, 2000; Sayers, Joice, & Bawden, 1990; Simkins, 1977; Snow, 1982b, 1984; Sodha & Amelsvoort, 1994).…”

Section: Pharmaceutical Information Sources Services and Retrievalmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The sector has been such an important user of these services that it has considerably influenced their development. The seven most important such services were all noted by Sewell (1976) and remain dominant thirty years later (Snow, 2008) These have been the subject of many comparisons and evaluations regarding their value in providing pharmaceutical information (e.g., Barillot, Sarrut, & Doreau, 1997;Bawden & Brock, 1985;Biarez, Sarrut, Doreau, & Etienne, 1991;Brown, 1998;Fishman, Stone, and DiPaula, 1996;Flory, 2002;Kruse, 1983;Robinson, McIlwaine, Copestake, & Anderson, 2000;Sayers, Joice, & Bawden, 1990;Simkins, 1977;Snow, 1982bSnow, , 1984Sodha & Amelsvoort, 1994).…”

Section: Database Servicesmentioning

confidence: 99%