Skip to main content
Proceedings of the Annual Symposium on Computer Application in Medical Care logoLink to Proceedings of the Annual Symposium on Computer Application in Medical Care
. 1988 Nov 9:530–534.

Self-Service Computerized Bibliographic Retrieval: A Comparison of Colleague and PaperChase, Programs That Search the MEDLINE Database

Douglas Porter, Robert S Wigton, Marie A Reidelbach, Howard L Bleich, Warner V Slack
PMCID: PMC2245177

Abstract

Colleague and PaperChase are the two most widely used computer systems designed for clinicians and scientists who wish to search the National Library of Medicine's MEDLINE data base of biomedical references. The present study compares the performance of these two systems.

Two matched groups of second-year medical students each received three hours of instruction, one group in Colleague, the other in PaperChase. Each student then attempted 10 test searches. The next day the groups were reversed, and each student attempted five additional searches.

During the 3.5 hours allocated for searching, users of Colleague attempted 64 test searches and retrieved 326 target references; users of PaperChase attempted 78 searches and retrieved 496. Users of Colleague took a mean of 2.2 minutes and spent a mean of $1.20 to find each target reference; users of PaperChase took 1.6 minutes and spent $0.92. We conclude that after limited training, medical students find more references faster and at lower cost with PaperChase than with Colleague.

Full text

PDF
530

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Doszkocs T. E., Rapp B. A., Schoolman H. M. Automated information retrieval in science and technology. Science. 1980 Apr 4;208(4439):25–30. doi: 10.1126/science.6987735. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Haynes R. B., McKibbon K. A., Walker C. J., Mousseau J., Baker L. M., Fitzgerald D., Guyatt G., Norman G. R. Computer searching of the medical literature. An evaluation of MEDLINE searching systems. Ann Intern Med. 1985 Nov;103(5):812–816. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-103-5-812. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Hill L. The medical library crisis: Billings to Medlars. J Med Educ. 1966 Jan;41(1):80–84. doi: 10.1097/00001888-196601000-00009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Horowitz G. L., Jackson J. D., Bleich H. L. PaperChase. Self-service bibliographic retrieval. JAMA. 1983 Nov 11;250(18):2494–2499. doi: 10.1001/jama.250.18.2494. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Sewell W., Bevan A. Nonmediated use of MEDLINE and TOXLINE by pathologists and pharmacists. Bull Med Libr Assoc. 1976 Oct;64(4):382–391. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Sewell W., Bevan A. Nonmediated use of MEDLINE and TOXLINE by pathologists and pharmacists. Bull Med Libr Assoc. 1976 Oct;64(4):382–391. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Proceedings of the Annual Symposium on Computer Application in Medical Care are provided here courtesy of American Medical Informatics Association

RESOURCES