The Annals Take our Readership Survey!
home help contact us subscription past issues search current issue
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

The Annals of Pharmacotherapy: Vol. 31, No. 1, pp. 45-49.
© 1997 Harvey Whitney Books Company.
This Article
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Articles Ahead of Print
Right arrow [Order Reprint]
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Barillot, M.
Right arrow Articles by Doreau, C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Barillot, M.
Right arrow Articles by Doreau, C.

Research Articles

Evaluation of drug interaction document citation in nine on-line bibliographic databases

MJ Barillot, B Sarrut, and CG Doreau

OBJECTIVE: To compare nine on-line bibliographic databases to obtain bibliographic references on specific drug interactions. DESIGN: Seven bibliographic databases were selected for their ability to provide information concerning drug interactions: EMBASE, MEDLINE, TOXLINE, BIOSIS, Chemical Abstracts (CAS), PHARMLINE, and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (IPA). Two French on-line bibliographic databases (i.e., PASCAL, BIBLIOGRAPHIF) were also tested to compare them with the other international databases. Twenty drug interactions were selected randomly using the journal Reactions Weekly 1993. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES: The total number of references, the number of potentially relevant references, the number of case report references, the number of unique references in the total number of references, and the number of unique references between potentially relevant references were analyzed by using the Friedman two-way ANOVA by ranks. For each database, relevance and relative recall were calculated. RESULTS: For the total number of references, EMBASE was significantly more comprehensive then all other databases (p < 0.05). EMBASE had a significantly greater number of potentially relevant references than IPA, PHARMLINE, CAS, and BIBLIOGRAPHIF (p < 0.05). For the total number of case report references, only one significant difference, between EMBASE and BIBLIOGRAPHIF (p < 0.05), was observed. MEDLINE and TOXLINE had the lowest cost per potentially relevant reference. CONCLUSIONS: To obtain bibliographic references on drug interactions, the first step should be to search MEDLINE or TOXLINE; the second step, for completeness, should be to search EMBASE.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc.Home page
R. A. Miller, R. M. Gardner, K. B. Johnson, and G. Hripcsak
Clinical Decision Support and Electronic Prescribing Systems: A Time for Responsible Thought and Action
J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc., July 1, 2005; 12(4): 403 - 409.
[Full Text] [PDF]


homecopy help contact us subscription past issues search current issue
Copyright © 1997 by Harvey Whitney Books Company.