Rovers J P, Janosik J E, Souney P F
Drake University College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences, Des Moines, IA.
Ann Pharmacother. 1993 May;27(5):634-9. doi: 10.1177/106002809302700519.
To compare Dialog EMBASE with the National Library of Medicine's (NLM's) MEDLARS MEDLINE, TOXLINE, and TOXLIT to evaluate differences among the databases and vendors in a method consistent with routine drug information practice.
Crossover comparison.
NLM MEDLARS databases MEDLINE, TOXLINE, and TOXLIT were searched directly. EMBASE was searched via Dialog Information Services. MEDLINE was searched back to 1980; TOXLINE and TOXLIT were searched back to 1981, reflecting the different database structures. EMBASE was searched back to 1980. To control bias, searches were randomized; identical strategies were used during the same session and were performed by the same trained searcher.
Twenty-six drug information requests were compared. The MEDLARS and Dialog databases were generally similar, with no significant differences in the number of potentially relevant references, English references, clinically relevant references, available abstracts, unique citations, time online, and number of questions answered. EMBASE searches were more costly (p = 0.0005). TOXLIT was costlier than TOXLINE and MEDLINE (p = 0.0018).
NLM MEDLARS databases were comparable to Dialog EMBASE. Although MEDLARS provided more total and English-language citations, the differences were small and did not influence the proportion of questions answered. The greatest difference between the vendors was the significantly lower cost of searching on MEDLARS. Although this difference may be partially offset by the significantly shorter search times on EMBASE, the mean 1.9 minutes saved would not recoup the mean $7.89 difference in cost. MEDLARS databases are less expensive for routine drug information requests.
将Dialog EMBASE与美国国立医学图书馆（NLM）的医学文献分析与检索系统联机数据库MEDLINE、毒理学数据库TOXLINE和毒理学文献数据库TOXLIT进行比较，以按照与常规药物信息实践一致的方法评估各数据库及供应商之间的差异。
交叉比较。
直接检索NLM医学文献分析与检索系统联机数据库MEDLINE、TOXLINE和TOXLIT。通过Dialog信息服务检索EMBASE。检索MEDLINE回溯至1980年；检索TOXLINE和TOXLIT回溯至1981年，以反映不同的数据库结构。检索EMBASE回溯至1980年。为控制偏倚，检索采用随机化；在同一时段使用相同的检索策略，并由同一位经过培训的检索人员执行。
对26项药物信息请求进行了比较。医学文献分析与检索系统联机数据库和Dialog数据库总体相似，在潜在相关参考文献数量、英文参考文献数量、临床相关参考文献数量、可获取摘要数量、唯一引用文献数量、在线时间和回答问题数量方面无显著差异。检索EMBASE成本更高（p = 0.0005）。检索TOXLIT比检索TOXLINE和MEDLINE成本更高（p = 0.0018）。
NLM医学文献分析与检索系统联机数据库与Dialog EMBASE具有可比性。尽管医学文献分析与检索系统联机数据库提供的总引用文献和英文引用文献更多，但差异很小，且不影响回答问题的比例。供应商之间最大的差异是检索医学文献分析与检索系统联机数据库的成本显著更低。尽管EMBASE显著更短的检索时间可能会部分抵消这一差异，但平均节省的1.9分钟无法弥补平均7.89美元的成本差异。对于常规药物信息请求，医学文献分析与检索系统联机数据库成本更低。
