Selecting a database for drug literature retrieval: A comparison of MEDLINE, scopus, and web of science

Science and Technology Libraries

Volumn 29, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 276-288

  Baykoucheva, Svetla ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND   (United States)

Author keywords

databases; drug literature; information retrieval; journal coverage; MEDLINE; Scopus; Web of Science

Indexed keywords

DATABASES; DRUG LITERATURE; JOURNAL COVERAGE; MEDLINE; SCOPUS; WEB OF SCIENCE;

INFORMATION RETRIEVAL;

DATABASE SYSTEMS;

EID: 78650103755     PISSN: 0194262X     EISSN: 15411109     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/0194262X.2010.522946     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Anders, M. E., and D. P. Evans. 2010. Comparison of PubMed and Google Scholar literature searches. Respiratory Care 55(5):578-83.
2. Bandyopadhyay, A. 2010. Examining biological abstracts on two platforms: What do end users need to know? Science & Technology Libraries 29(1):34-52.
3. Bianchi, S. 2002. PubMed: For more than medicine, this is one of the world's greatest databases. Issues in Science & Technology Librarianship 34 (Spring). http://www.istl.org/02-spring/databases3.html
4. Callaghan, J. T., R. F. Bergstrom, L. R. Ptak, and C. M. Beasley. 1999. Olanzapine - Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profile. Clinical Pharmacokinetics 37(3):177-93.
5. Davidson, M. H., and J. G. Robinson. 2006. Lipid-lowering effects of statins: A comparative review. Expert Opinion on Pharmacotherapy 7(13):1701-14.
6. Falagas, M. E., E. I. Pitsouni, G. A. Malietzis, and G. Pappas. 2008. Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar: Strengths and weaknesses. FASEB Journal 22(2):338-42.
7. Fingerman, S. 2006. Web of Science and Scopus: Current features and capabilities. Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship 48 (Fall). http://www.istl.org/06-fall/electronic2.html
8. Gavel, Y., and L. Iselid. 2008. Web of Science and Scopus: A journal title overlap study. Online Information Review 32(1):8-21.
9. Goodman, D., and L. Deis. 2007. Update on Scopus and Web of Science. Charleston Advisor 8(3):15-18.
10. Haldeman, M., B. Vieira, F. Winer, and L. J. S. Knutsen. 2005. Exploration tools for drug discovery and beyond: Applying SciFinder to interdisciplinary research. Current Drug Discovery Technologies 2(2):69-74.
11. Jacso, P. 2005. As we may search-Comparison of major features of the Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar citation-based and citation-enhanced databases. Current Science 89(9):1537-47.
12. Pfizer. 2010. Pfizer for Professionals-LIPITOR 20102010. https://www.pfizerpro.com/sites/ppro/Pages/products/lipitor.aspx
13. Salisbury, L. 2009. Web of Science and Scopus: A comparative review of content and searching capabilities. Charleston Advisor 11(1):5-18.
14. Shultz, M. 2007. Comparing test searches in PubMed and Google Scholar. Journal of the Medical Library Association 95(4):442-45.
15. Suarez-Almazor, M. E., E. Belseck, J. Homik, M. Dorgan, and C. Ramos-Remus. 2000. Identifying clinical trials in the medical literature with electronic databases: MEDLINE alone is not enough. Controlled Clinical Trials 21(5):476-87.
16. Thompson, D. F., and N. T. Williams. 2007. Tracking the growth of drug therapy literature using PubMed. Drug Information Journal 41(4):449-55.
17. Weiner, S. A. 2009. Tale of two databases: The history of federally funded information systems for education and medicine. Government Information Quarterly 26(3):450-58.