• 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

九个在线书目数据库中药物相互作用文献引用情况的评估。

Evaluation of drug interaction document citation in nine on-line bibliographic databases.

作者信息

Barillot M J, Sarrut B, Doreau C G

机构信息

Service d'Information Médico-Pharmaceutique, Pharmacie Centrale des Hôpitaux, Paris, France.

出版信息

Ann Pharmacother. 1997 Jan;31(1):45-9. doi: 10.1177/106002809703100106.

DOI:10.1177/106002809703100106
PMID:8997464
Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To compare nine on-line bibliographic databases to obtain bibliographic references on specific drug interactions.

DESIGN

Seven bibliographic databases were selected for their ability to provide information concerning drug interactions: EMBASE, MEDLINE, TOXLINE, BIOSIS, Chemical Abstracts (CAS), PHARMLINE, and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (IPA). Two French on-line bibliographic databases (i.e., PASCAL, BIBLIOGRAPHIF) were also tested to compare them with the other international databases. Twenty drug interactions were selected randomly using the journal Reactions Weekly 1993.

MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES

The total number of references, the number of potentially relevant references, the number of case report references, the number of unique references in the total number of references, and the number of unique references between potentially relevant references were analyzed by using the Friedman two-way ANOVA by ranks. For each database, relevance and relative recall were calculated.

RESULTS

For the total number of references, EMBASE was significantly more comprehensive then all other databases (p < 0.05). EMBASE had a significantly greater number of potentially relevant references than IPA, PHARMLINE, CAS, and BIBLIOGRAPHIF (p < 0.05). For the total number of case report references, only one significant difference, between EMBASE and BIBLIOGRAPHIF (p < 0.05), was observed. MEDLINE and TOXLINE had the lowest cost per potentially relevant reference.

CONCLUSIONS

To obtain bibliographic references on drug interactions, the first step should be to search MEDLINE or TOXLINE; the second step, for completeness, should be to search EMBASE.

摘要

目的

比较九个在线书目数据库,以获取特定药物相互作用的书目参考文献。

设计

选择七个书目数据库,因其能够提供有关药物相互作用的信息:EMBASE、MEDLINE、TOXLINE、BIOSIS、化学文摘(CAS)、PHARMLINE和国际药学文摘(IPA)。还测试了两个法语在线书目数据库(即PASCAL、BIBLIOGRAPHIF),以与其他国际数据库进行比较。使用《反应周刊》1993年随机选择了20种药物相互作用。

主要观察指标

通过使用弗里德曼双向秩方差分析,分析参考文献总数、潜在相关参考文献数量、病例报告参考文献数量、参考文献总数中的唯一参考文献数量以及潜在相关参考文献之间的唯一参考文献数量。计算每个数据库的相关性和相对召回率。

结果

对于参考文献总数,EMBASE比所有其他数据库都显著更全面(p < 0.05)。EMBASE的潜在相关参考文献数量比IPA、PHARMLINE、CAS和BIBLIOGRAPHIF显著更多(p < 0.05)。对于病例报告参考文献总数,仅观察到EMBASE和BIBLIOGRAPHIF之间的一个显著差异(p < 0.05)。MEDLINE和TOXLINE每潜在相关参考文献的成本最低。

结论

为获取药物相互作用的书目参考文献,第一步应搜索MEDLINE或TOXLINE;第二步,为了完整性,应搜索EMBASE。

相似文献

1
Evaluation of drug interaction document citation in nine on-line bibliographic databases.九个在线书目数据库中药物相互作用文献引用情况的评估。
Ann Pharmacother. 1997 Jan;31(1):45-9. doi: 10.1177/106002809703100106.
2
Comparison and evaluation of nine bibliographic databases concerning adverse drug reactions.九个关于药物不良反应的文献数据库的比较与评价
DICP. 1991 Oct;25(10):1062-5. doi: 10.1177/106002809102501005.
3
Crossover comparison of drug information online database vendors: Dialog and MEDLARS.在线药物信息数据库供应商的交叉比较:Dialog与医学文献分析与检索系统(MEDLARS)。
Ann Pharmacother. 1993 May;27(5):634-9. doi: 10.1177/106002809302700519.
4
Comparison of literature searches on quality and costs for health technology assessment using the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases.使用MEDLINE和EMBASE数据库对卫生技术评估的质量和成本进行文献检索的比较。
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1999 Spring;15(2):297-303.
5
A comparison of the performance of seven key bibliographic databases in identifying all relevant systematic reviews of interventions for hypertension.七个关键文献数据库在识别所有关于高血压干预措施的相关系统评价方面的性能比较。
Syst Rev. 2016 Feb 9;5:27. doi: 10.1186/s13643-016-0197-5.
6
Assessment of bibliographic databases performance in information retrieval for occupational and environmental toxicology.职业与环境毒理学信息检索中书目数据库性能的评估
Occup Environ Med. 1998 Aug;55(8):562-6. doi: 10.1136/oem.55.8.562.
7
Searching for information on toxicological data of chemical substances in selected bibliographic databases--selection of essential databases for toxicological researches.在选定的文献数据库中搜索化学物质的毒理学数据信息——毒理学研究基本数据库的选择
Chemosphere. 1996 Mar;32(5):867-80. doi: 10.1016/0045-6535(96)00012-4.
8
Searching chiropractic literature: a comparison of three computerized databases.搜索整脊医学文献:三个计算机化数据库的比较。
J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1996 Oct;19(8):518-24.
9
Comparing the coverage, recall, and precision of searches for 120 systematic reviews in Embase, MEDLINE, and Google Scholar: a prospective study.比较Embase、MEDLINE和谷歌学术中120项系统评价的检索覆盖范围、召回率和精确率:一项前瞻性研究。
Syst Rev. 2016 Mar 1;5:39. doi: 10.1186/s13643-016-0215-7.
10
EMBASE versus MEDLINE for family medicine searches: can MEDLINE searches find the forest or a tree?用于家庭医学检索的EMBASE与MEDLINE:MEDLINE检索能看到森林还是树木?
Can Fam Physician. 2005 Jun;51(6):848-9.

引用本文的文献

1
Specialist Bibliographic Databases.专业书目数据库。
J Korean Med Sci. 2016 May;31(5):660-73. doi: 10.3346/jkms.2016.31.5.660. Epub 2016 Feb 23.
2
Is the coverage of Google Scholar enough to be used alone for systematic reviews.谷歌学术的涵盖范围是否足以单独用于系统评价。
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2013 Jan 9;13:7. doi: 10.1186/1472-6947-13-7.
3
Association between leukotriene-modifying agents and suicide: what is the evidence?白三烯调节剂与自杀的相关性:有何证据?
Drug Saf. 2011 Jul 1;34(7):533-44. doi: 10.2165/11587260-000000000-00000.
4
Enhancing access to reports of randomized trials published world-wide--the contribution of EMBASE records to the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library.增加获取全球发表的随机试验报告的机会——EMBASE记录对《考克兰图书馆》中《考克兰对照试验中心注册库》(CENTRAL)的贡献。
Emerg Themes Epidemiol. 2008 Sep 30;5:13. doi: 10.1186/1742-7622-5-13.
5
EMBASE versus MEDLINE for family medicine searches: can MEDLINE searches find the forest or a tree?用于家庭医学检索的EMBASE与MEDLINE:MEDLINE检索能看到森林还是树木?
Can Fam Physician. 2005 Jun;51(6):848-9.
6
Extracting drug-drug interaction articles from MEDLINE to improve the content of drug databases.从医学文献数据库(MEDLINE)中提取药物相互作用文章以改善药物数据库的内容。
AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2005;2005:216-20.
7
Clinical decision support and electronic prescribing systems: a time for responsible thought and action.临床决策支持与电子处方系统:是时候进行负责任的思考与行动了。
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2005 Jul-Aug;12(4):403-9. doi: 10.1197/jamia.M1830. Epub 2005 May 19.
8
Evaluation of five full-text drug databases by pharmacy students, faculty, and librarians: do the groups agree?药学专业学生、教师和图书馆员对五个全文药物数据库的评估:各群体的意见一致吗?
J Med Libr Assoc. 2004 Jan;92(1):66-71.
9
Medline and Embase complement each other in literature searches.医学文献数据库(Medline)和荷兰医学文摘数据库(Embase)在文献检索中相辅相成。
BMJ. 1998 Apr 11;316(7138):1166. doi: 10.1136/bmj.316.7138.1166.
10
Drug interactions among commonly used medications. Chart simplifies data from critical literature review.常用药物之间的药物相互作用。图表简化了来自关键文献综述的数据。
Can Fam Physician. 1997 Nov;43:1972-6, 1979-81.