Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Bulletin of the Medical Library Association logoLink to Bulletin of the Medical Library Association
. 1997 Oct;85(4):378–384.

An analysis of objective quality indicators on Year Book citations: implications for MEDLINE searchers.

E D Johnson 1, E J McKinin 1, M E Sievert 1, J C Reid 1
PMCID: PMC226295  PMID: 9431427

Abstract

PURPOSE: This study is an analysis of Mosby Year Book citations from Ovid Online's Comprehensive Core Medical Library (CCML). The purpose of this study was twofold: (1) to determine whether Year Book citations were more likely to be judged "key" than non-Year Book citations by clinicians; and (2) to determine whether the MEDLINE record of Year Book citations evaluated as key contained objective quality indicators that searchers might use to target key articles. BACKGROUND: As part of the MEDLINE/Full-Text Research Project, health care professionals evaluated search output from CCML on a five-point scale. The scale included the choice "key" for those items which the evaluator would not want to miss. Because the output contained items from the Year Book series, it was possible to determine whether the Year Book items were evaluated as key more frequently than expected. METHODS: This study analyzes the MEDLINE records corresponding to 110 references from the Mosby Year Book series evaluated as key by clinicians receiving search output from CCML. The records were examined for the presence of such searchable elements as Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms and publication types related to study design, evidence of research support, inclusion in the Abridged Index Medicus (AIM) subset, and a comments field. Also noted were the presence of a structured abstract, study design details in the author abstract, and inclusion in more than one Year Book. RESULTS: A chi-square test (p < .001 indicated that the proportion (33%) of Year Book citations marked key on the searches was significantly higher than that of non-Year Book citations (18%). When the occurrence of the searchable elements was compared to MEDLINE as a whole, the following access points appeared more frequently in the key Year Book records: study design terms categorized under epidemiologic methods in the MeSH Tree Structures; the checktag comparative study; AIM subset; comments field; and, publication types (pt) clinical trial, randomized controlled trial, multicenter study, and meta-analysis. CONCLUSIONS: These searchable elements should be helpful in targeting some, but not all, key articles in MEDLINE.

Full text

PDF
378

Selected References

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

  1. Balasubramanian S., Bhaskar P. A. Quality filters in medical publications. J Indian Med Assoc. 1984 Nov;82(11):420–421. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Dickersin K., Hewitt P., Mutch L., Chalmers I., Chalmers T. C. Perusing the literature: comparison of MEDLINE searching with a perinatal trials database. Control Clin Trials. 1985 Dec;6(4):306–317. doi: 10.1016/0197-2456(85)90106-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Dupont C. Is the Year Book really necessary? Int J Dermatol. 1985 May;24(4):243–244. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-4362.1985.tb05772.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Etzioni A. The need for quality filters in information systems. Science. 1971 Jan 15;171(3967):133–133. doi: 10.1126/science.171.3967.133. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Haynes R. B. Clinical review articles. BMJ. 1992 Feb 8;304(6823):330–331. doi: 10.1136/bmj.304.6823.330. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Haynes R. B. Loose connections between peer-reviewed clinical journals and clinical practice. Ann Intern Med. 1990 Nov 1;113(9):724–728. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-113-9-724. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Hewitt P., Dickersin K., Chalmers T. C. More on MEDLINE searches. Control Clin Trials. 1988 Mar;9(1):85–90. doi: 10.1016/0197-2456(88)90012-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Jadad A. R., McQuay H. J. A high-yield strategy to identify randomized controlled trials for systematic reviews. Online J Curr Clin Trials. 1993 Feb 27;DOC:[3973 words–paragraphs]. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Jadad A. R., McQuay H. J. Searching the literature. Be systematic in your searching. BMJ. 1993 Jul 3;307(6895):66–66. doi: 10.1136/bmj.307.6895.66-a. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Kirpalani H., Schmidt B., McKibbon K. A., Haynes R. B., Sinclair J. C. Searching MEDLINE for randomized clinical trials involving care of the newborn. Pediatrics. 1989 Apr;83(4):543–546. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Milne R., Chambers L. Assessing the scientific quality of review articles. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1993 Jun;47(3):169–170. doi: 10.1136/jech.47.3.169. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Oxman A. D., Sackett D. L., Guyatt G. H. Users' guides to the medical literature. I. How to get started. The Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA. 1993 Nov 3;270(17):2093–2095. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Poynard T., Conn H. O. The retrieval of randomized clinical trials in liver disease from the medical literature. A comparison of MEDLARS and manual methods. Control Clin Trials. 1985 Dec;6(4):271–279. doi: 10.1016/0197-2456(85)90103-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Sievert M. E., McKinin E. J., Johnson E. D., Reid J. C., Mitchell J. A. Beyond relevance--characteristics of key papers for clinicians: an exploratory study in an academic setting. Bull Med Libr Assoc. 1996 Jul;84(3):351–358. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Wilczynski N. L., Walker C. J., McKibbon K. A., Haynes R. B. Assessment of methodologic search filters in MEDLINE. Proc Annu Symp Comput Appl Med Care. 1993:601–605. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Wilczynski N. L., Walker C. J., McKibbon K. A., Haynes R. B. Reasons for the loss of sensitivity and specificity of methodologic MeSH terms and textwords in MEDLINE. Proc Annu Symp Comput Appl Med Care. 1995:436–440. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Williamson J. W., German P. S., Weiss R., Skinner E. A., Bowes F., 3rd Health science information management and continuing education of physicians. A survey of U.S. primary care practitioners and their opinion leaders. Ann Intern Med. 1989 Jan 15;110(2):151–160. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-110-2-151. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Wilson A., Henry D. A. Meta-analysis. Part 2: Assessing the quality of published meta-analyses. Med J Aust. 1992 Feb 3;156(3):173-4, 177-80, 184-7. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Wyatt J. Use and sources of medical knowledge. Lancet. 1991 Nov 30;338(8779):1368–1373. doi: 10.1016/0140-6736(91)92245-w. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

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

RESOURCES