Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow E-letters: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
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 ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (6)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Verhoeven, A. A.
Right arrow Articles by Meyboom-de Jong, B.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Verhoeven, A. A.
Right arrow Articles by Meyboom-de Jong, B.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Family Practice Vol. 17, No. 1, 30-35
© Oxford University Press 2000

Which literature retrieval method is most effective for GPs?

Anita AH Verhoeven, Edzard J Boermaa and Betty Meyboom-de Jongb

University Library,
a Department of Education and
b Department of General Practice, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.

Anita AH Verhoeven, University Library, University of Groningen, P.O. Box 559, 9700 Groningen, The Netherlands.

Background. Evidence-based medicine requires new skills of physicians, including literature searching.

Objective. To determine which literature retrieving method is most effective for GPs: the printed Index Medicus; Medline through Grateful Med; or Medline on CD-ROM.

Methods. The design was a randomized comparative study. In a continuing medical education course, three groups of health care professionals (87 GPs and 16 other health care professionals) used one of the literature retrieval methods to retrieve citations on four search topics related to general practice. For the analysis in pairs, we used the search results of the 75 participants who completed all four assignments. As outcome measures, we used precision, recall and an overall search quality score; we also had a post-course questionnaire on personal characteristics, experience with computers, handling medical literature and satisfaction with course instruction and search results.

Results. The recall and overall search quality scores in the Index Medicus groups (n = 32) were higher (P = <0.001) than those in the CD-ROM groups (n = 31). In addition, the search quality scores in the Grateful Med groups (n = 12) were higher (P < 0.003) than those in the CD-ROM groups. There were no differences in precision.

Conclusion. In the period 1994–1997, the printed Index Medicus was the most effective literature retrieval method for GPs. For inexperienced GPs, there is a need for training in electronic literature retrieval methods.

Keywords. Comparative study, family physicians, information storage and retrieval, MEDLARS, Medline..


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Fam PractHome page
L. A Al-Ansary and T. A Khoja
The place of evidence-based medicine among primary health care physicians in Riyadh region, Saudi Arabia
Fam. Pract., October 1, 2002; 19(5): 537 - 542.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.