Evaluation of five full-text drug databases by pharmacy students, faculty, and librarians: Do the groups agree?

Journal of the Medical Library Association

Volumn 92, Issue 1, 2004, Pages 66-71

  Kupferberg, Natalie ^a   Hartel, Lynda Jones ^a  

^a OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATABASE; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; DRUG INFORMATION; EVALUATION; FULL TEXT DRUG DATABASE; HUMAN; INFORMATION SERVICE; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; LIBRARIAN; MEDICAL LIBRARIAN; ONLINE SYSTEM; PHARMACY; RATING SCALE; REFERENCE VALUE; SATISFACTION; STUDENT; UNIVERSITY;

ACADEMIC MEDICAL CENTERS; CONSUMER SATISFACTION; DATABASES, FACTUAL; DRUG INFORMATION SERVICES; FACULTY; HUMANS; LIBRARIANS; LIBRARIES, HOSPITAL; OBSERVER VARIATION; OHIO; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; STUDENTS, PHARMACY;

EID: 1542376755     PISSN: 15365050     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. NATIONAL LIBRARY OF MEDICINE. Drug literature: a factual survey on "the nature and magnitude of drug literature." Report prepared for the study of Interagency Coordination in Drug Research and Regulation by the Subcommittee on Reorganization and International Organizations of the Senate Committee on Government Operations, 88th Cong., 1st sess., 1963. Committee Print.
2. BROOKS DJ. Rating the ethics of medical professionals. Gallup Poll Tuesday Briefing 2002 Dec 17;26-7.
3. COOKSEY JA, KNAPP KK, WALTON SM, CULTICE JM. Challenges to the pharmacist profession from escalating pharmaceutical demand. Health Aff (Millwood) 2002 Sep-Oct; 21(5):182-8.
4. KRUSE KW. Online searching of the pharmaceutical literature. Am J Hosp Pharm 1983 Feb;40(2):240-53
5. MALONE PM, MOSDELL KW, KIER KL, STANOVICH JE. Drug information: a guide for pharmacists. 2nd ed. New York, NY: McGraw Hill, 2001.
6. BELGADO BS, HATTON RC, DOERING PL. Evaluation of electronic drug information resources for answering questions received by decentralized pharmacists. Am J Health Syst Pharm 1997 Nov 15;54(22):2592-6.
7. DUFFULL SB, BEGG EJ. Comparative assessment of databases used in a drug information service. Aust J Hosp Pharm 1992 Oct;22(5):364-8.
8. AL HEFZI A, CATANIA PN, MERGENER MA, LUM BL. Evaluation of three manual drug information retrieval systems for investigational antineoplastic drugs. Drug Intell Clin Pharm 1987 Feb;21(2):196-200.
9. TOURVILLE JF, MCLEOD DC. Comparison of the clinical utility of four drug information services. Am J Hosp Pharm 1975 Nov;32(11):1153-8.
10. BARILLOT MJ, SARRUT B, DOUREAU CG. Evaluation of drug interaction document citation in nine on-line bibliographic databases. Ann Pharmacother 1997 Jan;31(1):45-9.
11. FISHMAN DL, STONE VL, DIPAULA BA. Where should the pharmacy researcher look first? Comparing International Pharmaceutical Abstracts and MEDLINE. Bull Med Libr Assoc 1996 Jul;84(3):402-8.
12. STONE VL, FISHMAN DL, FRESE DB. Searching online and Web-based resources for information on natural products used as drugs. Bull Med Libr Assoc 1998 Oct;86(4):523-7.
13. TRAVIS TA, NORLIN E. Testing the competition: usability of commercial information sites compared with academic library Web sites. Coll Res Libr 2002 Sep;63(5):433-48.
14. VIRZI RA. Refining the test phase of usability evaluation: how many subjects is enough? Hum Factors 1992 Aug;34(4): 457-68.
15. FIDEL R, DAVIES RK, DOUGLASS MH, HOLDER JK, HOPKINS CJ, KUSHNER EJ, MIYAGISHMA BK, TONEY CD. A visit to the information mall: Web searching behavior of high school students. J Am Soc Inf Sci 1999 Jan;50(1):24-37.