Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Bulletin of the Medical Library Association logoLink to Bulletin of the Medical Library Association
. 1996 Jul;84(3):402–408.

Where should the pharmacy researcher look first? Comparing International Pharmaceutical Abstracts and MEDLINE.

D L Fishman 1, V L Stone 1, B A DiPaula 1
PMCID: PMC226161  PMID: 8883989

Abstract

This study compared the usefulness of various CD-ROM versions of International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (IPA) and MEDLINE for pharmacy research. Journal coverage as well as the strengths and weaknesses of database structure and contents were considered. The journals indexed in each database were compared to those identified in a survey of the research journals most important to University of Maryland at Baltimore pharmacy faculty and in a similar North Carolina study rating pharmacy journals. In addition, indexed journals were checked against the Institute for Scientific Information's most recent list of high-impact journals in pharmacology and pharmacy. Searches representing a variety of topics relevant to pharmacy were conducted in both databases, and the number and relevance of citations located were analyzed. Results showed that IPA indexed a greater number of pharmacy titles, but that MEDLINE indexed more pharmacy journals designated in studies as significant to the field. There was little overlap in coverage between the two databases. MEDLINE produced larger retrievals for the majority of questions, but many citations retrieved in IPA did not appear in MEDLINE.

Full text

PDF
402

Selected References

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

  1. Bobka M. S. The 21 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) online database: Food and Drug Administration regulations full-text. Med Ref Serv Q. 1993 Spring;12(1):7–15. doi: 10.1300/J115V12N04_02. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Burnham J., Shearer B. Comparison of CINAHL, EMBASE, and MEDLINE databases for the nurse researcher. Med Ref Serv Q. 1993 Fall;12(3):45–57. doi: 10.1300/j115v12n03_04. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Cluxton R. J., Jr, Hunter R. H., Reed R. C. Comparison of five information services as sources for bioavailability data. Am J Hosp Pharm. 1979 Sep;36(9):1215–1218. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. King N. S., Goldstein S. E., Williams L. A. MEDLINE and PsycLIT on CD-ROM: a survey of users in an academic medical library. Med Ref Serv Q. 1990 Spring;9(1):43–58. doi: 10.1300/J115v09n01_04. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Kruse K. W. Online searching of the pharmaceutical literature. Am J Hosp Pharm. 1983 Feb;40(2):240–253. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Okuma E. Selecting CD-ROM databases for nursing students: a comparison of MEDLINE and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL). Bull Med Libr Assoc. 1994 Jan;82(1):25–29. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Perry C. A. Online information retrieval in pharmacy and related fields. Am J Hosp Pharm. 1986 Jun;43(6):1509–1524. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Schoonbaert D. SPIRS, WinSPIRS, and OVID: a comparison of three MEDLINE-on-CD-ROM interfaces. Bull Med Libr Assoc. 1996 Jan;84(1):63–70. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Watson M. M., Perrin R. A comparison of CINAHL and MEDLINE CD-ROM in four allied health areas. Bull Med Libr Assoc. 1994 Apr;82(2):214–216. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Bulletin of the Medical Library Association are provided here courtesy of Medical Library Association

RESOURCES