• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

利用万维网回答临床问题:不同信息检索方法的效率如何?

Using the World Wide Web to answer clinical questions: how efficient are different methods of information retrieval?

作者信息

Graber M A, Bergus G R, York C

机构信息

Department of Family Medicine, University of Iowa College of Medicine, Iowa City, USA.

出版信息

J Fam Pract. 1999 Jul;48(7):520-4.

PMID:10428249
Abstract

BACKGROUND

The World Wide Web (Web) has the potential to revolutionize information retrieval in medicine. However, the best method of information retrieval from the Web is not known. The purpose of our study was to compare medical search engines, general-purpose search engines, medical meta-lists, and commercial sites on the Web with regard to their efficiency in retrieving medical information.

METHODS

Ten questions were identified from a database of questions posed by primary care clinicians. Authoritative answers were identified. Searches were performed using 1 commercial site, 4 general search engines, 9 medicine-specific search engines, and 2 medical meta-lists. The main outcome measures were the number of questions answered by each Web site, the correctness of the answers, the number of links followed to get an answer, and how well documented the answer was using the Health on the Net criteria.

RESULTS

MD Consult, a commercial site, answered 6 of 10 questions. Hardin MD (a meta-list) and Excite and HotBot (general search engines) each answered 5 questions. The medicine-specific search engines performed poorly, answering an average of only 1 question. MD Consult and HotBot required the least number of links to find an answer. MD Consult and Hardin MD had the best documented answers.

CONCLUSIONS

Medicine-specific search engines on the Web fare poorly in answering clinical questions when compared with general search engines. MD Consult, Excite, HotBot, and Hardin MD found the greatest number of answers.

摘要

背景

万维网有潜力彻底改变医学信息检索方式。然而,目前尚不清楚从网上检索信息的最佳方法。我们研究的目的是比较医学搜索引擎、通用搜索引擎、医学元列表以及网上商业网站在检索医学信息方面的效率。

方法

从基层医疗临床医生提出的问题数据库中确定了10个问题,并找到了权威答案。使用1个商业网站、4个通用搜索引擎、9个医学专用搜索引擎和2个医学元列表进行搜索。主要观察指标包括每个网站回答的问题数量、答案的正确性、为获取答案而点击的链接数量,以及根据健康网标准答案的文献记录完善程度。

结果

商业网站MD Consult回答了10个问题中的6个。Hardin MD(一个元列表)以及Excite和HotBot(通用搜索引擎)各回答了5个问题。医学专用搜索引擎表现不佳,平均每个仅回答了1个问题。MD Consult和HotBot找到答案所需的链接数量最少。MD Consult和Hardin MD的答案文献记录最完善。

结论

与通用搜索引擎相比,网上的医学专用搜索引擎在回答临床问题方面表现不佳。MD Consult、Excite、HotBot和Hardin MD找到的答案数量最多。

相似文献

1
Using the World Wide Web to answer clinical questions: how efficient are different methods of information retrieval?利用万维网回答临床问题:不同信息检索方法的效率如何?
J Fam Pract. 1999 Jul;48(7):520-4.
2
A comparison of world wide web resources for identifying medical information.用于识别医学信息的万维网资源比较。
Acad Radiol. 2008 Sep;15(9):1165-72. doi: 10.1016/j.acra.2008.02.010.
3
Quality analysis of patient information about knee arthroscopy on the World Wide Web.万维网上膝关节镜检查患者信息的质量分析
Arthroscopy. 2007 May;23(5):509-513.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.arthro.2006.12.007.
4
Searching for cancer information on the internet: analyzing natural language search queries.在互联网上搜索癌症信息:分析自然语言搜索查询
J Med Internet Res. 2003 Dec 11;5(4):e31. doi: 10.2196/jmir.5.4.e31.
5
[Biomedical information on the internet using search engines. A one-year trial].[使用搜索引擎获取互联网上的生物医学信息。一项为期一年的试验]
Recenti Prog Med. 2004 Jan;95(1):22-6.
6
A study of medical and health queries to web search engines.一项关于向网络搜索引擎提出的医疗卫生问题的研究。
Health Info Libr J. 2004 Mar;21(1):44-51. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-1842.2004.00481.x.
7
Information-seeking behaviors and reflective practice.信息寻求行为与反思性实践。
J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2006 Spring;26(2):120-7. doi: 10.1002/chp.60.
8
Answering family physicians' clinical questions using electronic medical databases.使用电子医学数据库回答家庭医生的临床问题。
J Fam Pract. 2001 Nov;50(11):960-5.
9
Assessing cancer treatment related information online: unintended retrieval of complementary and alternative medicine web sites.在线评估癌症治疗相关信息:意外检索到补充和替代医学网站。
Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2009 Jan;18(1):64-8. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2354.2008.00944.x. Epub 2008 Sep 1.
10
Practical considerations for exploiting the World Wide Web to create infobuttons.利用万维网创建信息按钮的实际考量
Stud Health Technol Inform. 2004;107(Pt 1):277-81.

引用本文的文献

1
Diagnosis in Bytes: Comparing the Diagnostic Accuracy of Google and ChatGPT 3.5 as an Educational Support Tool.诊断字节:比较谷歌和 ChatGPT 3.5 作为教育支持工具的诊断准确性。
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2024 May 1;21(5):580. doi: 10.3390/ijerph21050580.
2
A review of online evidence-based practice point-of-care information summary providers.在线循证实践即时护理信息摘要提供者综述。
J Med Internet Res. 2010 Jul 7;12(3):e26. doi: 10.2196/jmir.1288.
3
Clinical Digital Libraries Project: design approach and exploratory assessment of timely use in clinical environments.
临床数字图书馆项目:临床环境中及时使用的设计方法与探索性评估
J Med Libr Assoc. 2006 Apr;94(2):190-7.