Online access to MEDLINE in clinical settings. A study of use and usefulness.

STUDY OBJECTIVE We introduced self-service access to the medical literature database, MEDLINE, into clinical settings to assess the frequency, patterns, purposes, and success of use. DESIGN Longitudinal descriptive study. SETTING Inpatient and outpatient services of a university medical center. PARTICIPANTS All trainees and attending staff working at the service sites were invited to participate; 158 (84%) did so. INTERVENTIONS Free online access was provided to MEDLINE through GRATEFUL MED software. Participants were offered a 2-hour introduction to online searching and 2 hours of free search time. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS For each search, a computer program requested identification of the user and the question to be addressed. Search transactions were recorded automatically. Interviews were conducted after a random sample of searches, and search questions were given to more expert searchers to run for comparison with the original. Eighty-one percent of participants did searches on study computers, at a mean rate of 2.7 searches per month. On comparison searches, participants retrieved 55% of the number of relevant articles retrieved by reference librarians (P = 0.024) and 50% more irrelevant articles (P less than 0.001). Forty-seven percent of searches on patient problems affected clinical decisions, but often on scanty information. CONCLUSIONS MEDLINE searching from clinical settings is feasible with brief training and affects clinical decisions. However, inexperienced searchers miss many relevant citations and search inefficiently. Further studies are needed to assess the impact of searching on physician performance and patient care.

[1]  J. Stross,et al.  The dissemination of new medical information. , 1979, JAMA.

[2]  H L Bleich,et al.  PaperChase: a computer program to search the medical literature. , 1981, The New England journal of medicine.

[3]  H. L. Bleich,et al.  PaperChase. Self-service bibliographic retrieval. , 1983, JAMA.

[4]  D. Sackett,et al.  Educational package on hypertension for primary care physicians. , 1984, Canadian Medical Association journal.

[5]  L Mutch,et al.  Perusing the literature: comparison of MEDLINE searching with a perinatal trials database. , 1985, Controlled clinical trials.

[6]  M. Collen,et al.  Full-text medical literature retrieval by computer. A pilot test. , 1985, JAMA.

[7]  D Fitzgerald,et al.  How to keep up with the medical literature: V. Access by personal computer to the medical literature. , 1986, Annals of internal medicine.

[8]  Winifred Sewell,et al.  Observations of end-user online searching behavior over eleven years , 1986, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

[9]  Martha Kirby Ms,et al.  MEDLINE Searching on Colleague , 1986 .

[10]  D Fitzgerald,et al.  How to keep up with the medical literature: IV. Using the literature to solve clinical problems. , 1986, Annals of internal medicine.

[11]  F. Gutzwiller,et al.  A proposal for more informative abstracts of clinical articles. Ad Hoc Working Group for Critical Appraisal of the Medical Literature. , 1987, Annals of internal medicine.

[12]  K Ann McKibbon,et al.  A Study of MEDLINE in Clinical Settings: Design and Preliminary Results. , 1988 .

[13]  Herbert S. White,et al.  Putting users to work , 1988 .

[14]  R. Gray,et al.  Pecking injury of the eye. , 1988, New England Journal of Medicine.

[15]  R. Haynes,et al.  Searching MEDLINE for randomized clinical trials involving care of the newborn. , 1989, Pediatrics.