MEDLINE Versus EMBASE and CINAHL for Telemedicine Searches
Abstract
There are multiple bibliographic databases for use in telemedicine research. These include Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), Excerpta Medica Database (EMBASE), and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), which are easy to use, easily accessible, and, in some cases, fee based. The authors compared these three to estimate what proportion of potentially relevant publications would be missed when only MEDLINE was used. Each of these three was found to be not 100% identical. The implication was that some valuable literature may not be cited, as it was not found by the researchers when they were doing a search. Researchers should consider multiple choices for their literature searches to ensure a comprehensive review. Introduction:Researchers in the domain of telemedicine throughout the world tend to search multiple bibliographic databases to retrieve the highest possible number of publications when conducting review projects.Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), Excerpta Medica Database (EMBASE), and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) are three popular databases in the discipline of biomedicine that are used for conducting reviews. Access to the MEDLINE database is free and easy, whereas EMBASE and CINAHL are not free and sometimes not easy to access for researchers in small research centers.Objective:This project sought to compare MEDLINE with EMBASE and CINAHL to estimate what proportion of potentially relevant publications would be missed when only MEDLINE is used in a review project, in comparison to when EMBASE and CINAHL are also used.Methods:Twelve simple keywords relevant to 12 different telemedicine applications were searched using all three databases, and the results were compared.Results:About 9%–18% of potentially relevant articles would have been missed if MEDLINE had been the only database used.Conclusions:It is preferable if all three or more databases are used when conducting a review in telemedicine. Researchers from developing countries or small research institutions could rely on only MEDLINE, but they would loose 9%–18% of the potentially relevant publications. Searching MEDLINE alone is not ideal, but in a resource-constrained situation, it is definitely better than nothing.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The literature on database coverage generally concludes that searching PubMed may not be sufficient and that other databases can contribute relevant publications.
“The literature on database coverage generally concludes that searching PubMed may not be sufficient and that other databases can contribute with relevant publications (6,(27)(28)(29).”
From PubMed coverage varied across specialties and over time: a large-scale study of included studies in Cochrane reviews (2019) · cites this paper as [27]
Cites
A nursing qualitative systematic review required MEDLINE and CINAHL for study identification
Subirana‐Casacuberta, M., Solà, I., García, J. M., Gich, I. J., & Urrútia, G. (2005) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2004.06.001 · Cited by 129 · see citing works
EMBASE versus MEDLINE for family medicine searches: can MEDLINE searches find the forest or a tree?
Wilkins, T., Gillies, R. A., & Davies, K. J. (2005) · PubMed · Cited by 72 · see citing works
Brettle, A., & Long, A. (2001) · PubMed · Cited by 67 · see citing works
Topfer, L.-A., Parada, A., Menon, D., Noorani, H. Z., Perras, C., & Serra‐Prat, M. (1999) · International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care · doi:10.1017/s0266462399015226 · Cited by 59 · see citing works
Publication output in telemedicine during the period January 1964 to July 2003
Moser, P. L., Hauffe, H., Lorenz, I. H., Hager, M., Tiefenthaler, W., Lorenz, H. M., Mikuz, G., Soegner, P. I., & Kolbitsch, C. (2004) · Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare · doi:10.1258/135763304773391495 · Cited by 47 · see citing works
Selecting a database for literature searches in nursing: MEDLINE or CINAHL?
Brazier, H., & Begley, C. (1996) · Journal of Advanced Nursing · doi:10.1046/j.1365-2648.1996.26426.x · Cited by 46 · see citing works
Comparison of CINAHL, EMBASE, and MEDLINE Databases for the Nurse Researcher
Burnham, J. F., & Shearer, B. S. (1993) · Medical Reference Services Quarterly · doi:10.1300/j115v12n03_04 · Cited by 28 · see citing works
CINAHL and MEDLINE: a comparison of indexing practices.
Brenner, S., & McKinin, E. J. (1989) · PubMed · Cited by 18 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Vimalananda, V. G., Gupte, G., Seraj, S. M., Orlander, J., Berlowitz, D., Fincke, B. G., & Simon, S. R. (2015) · Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare · doi:10.1177/1357633x15582108 · Cited by 437 · see citing works
Khoshrounejad, F., Hamednia, M., Mehrjerd, A., Pichaghsaz, S., Jamalirad, H., Sargolzaei, M., Hoseini, B., & Aalaei, S. (2021) · Frontiers in Public Health · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2021.711762 · Cited by 174 · see citing works
Aminuddin, H. B., Jiao, N., Jiang, Y., Hong, J., & Wang, W. (2021) · International Journal of Nursing Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2019.02.003 · Cited by 157 · see citing works
Gagnon, M.-P., Nsangou, É.-R., Payne-Gagnon, J., Grenier, S., & Sicotte, C. (2014) · Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association · doi:10.1136/amiajnl-2013-002203 · Cited by 132 · see citing works
Telemedicine Acceptance Among Older Adult Patients With Cancer: Scoping Review
Pang, N.-Q., Lau, J., Fong, S.-Y., Wong, C. Y.-H., & Tan, K.-K. (2022) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/28724 · Cited by 75 · see citing works
Frandsen, T. F., Eriksen, M. B., Hammer, D. M. G., & Christensen, J. B. (2019) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.04.015 · Cited by 44 · see citing works
VALUE OF DATABASES OTHER THAN MEDLINE FOR RAPID HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTS
Lorenzetti, D. L., Topfer, L.-A., Dennett, L., & Clement, F. (2014) · International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care · doi:10.1017/s0266462314000166 · Cited by 30 · see citing works
- Authors
- Bahaadinbeigy, K., Yogesan, K., & Wootton, R.
- Affiliations
- Lions Eye Institute (AU)
- Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (AU)
- Norwegian Centre for Integrated Care and Telemedicine, Tromso, Norway.
- Corresponding author
- Bahaadinbeigy, Kambiz
- Venue
- Telemedicine and e-Health
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2010-10
- Volume
- 16
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 916-919
- ISSN
- 1530-5627 (ISSN-L)
- 1556-3669
- OpenAlex
- W1999383655
- Cited by
- 40
- References
- 8
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 3 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 1.98
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Telemedicine Journal and e-Health (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- UWA Profiles and Research Repository (UWA) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › scientometrics and bibliometrics research
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information Retrieval and Search Behavior
- Keywords
- MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, bibliographic database comparison, literature search comprehensiveness, systematic reviews
- MeSH terms
- Feasibility Studies, Humans, Norway, Western Australia, Program Evaluation, MEDLINE, Telemedicine, Information Dissemination
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
