Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 287

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Online Access to MEDLINE in Clinical Settings: A Study of Use and Usefulness

Haynes, R. Brian, McKibbon, K. Ann, Walker, Cynthia J., Ryan, Nancy, Fitzgerald, Dorothy, Ramsden, Michael F.·1990·Annals of Internal Medicine

Abstract

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We introduced self-service access to the medical literature database, MEDLINE, into clinical settings to assess the frequency, patterns, purposes, and success of use. DESIGN: Longitudinal descriptive study. SETTING: Inpatient and outpatient services of a university medical center. PARTICIPANTS: All trainees and attending staff working at the service sites were invited to participate; 158 (84%) did so. INTERVENTIONS: Free online access was provided to MEDLINE through GRATEFUL MED software. Participants were offered a 2-hour introduction to online searching and 2 hours of free search time. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: For each search, a computer program requested identification of the user and the question to be addressed. Search transactions were recorded automatically. Interviews were conducted after a random sample of searches, and search questions were given to more expert searchers to run for comparison with the original. Eighty-one percent of participants did searches on study computers, at a mean rate of 2.7 searches per month. On comparison searches, participants retrieved 55% of the number of relevant articles retrieved by reference librarians (P = 0.024) and 50% more irrelevant articles (P less than 0.001). Forty-seven percent of searches on patient problems affected clinical decisions, but often on scanty information. CONCLUSIONS: MEDLINE searching from clinical settings is feasible with brief training and affects clinical decisions. However, inexperienced searchers miss many relevant citations and search inefficiently. Further studies are needed to assess the impact of searching on physician performance and patient care.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.7326/0003-4819-112-1-78

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 287

Metadata

Authors
Haynes, R. B., McKibbon, K. A., Walker, C. J., Ryan, N., Fitzgerald, D., & Ramsden, M. F.
Venue
Annals of Internal Medicine
Published
1990-01-01
Volume
112
Issue
1
Pages
78-84
ISSN
  • 0003-4819 (ISSN-L)
  • 1539-3704
OpenAlex
W2171695133
Cited by
287
References
0
FWCI
61.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Online Access to MEDLINE in Clinical Settings: A Study of Use and Usefulness. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.7326/0003-4819-112-1-78
The paper
Haynes, R. B., McKibbon, K. A., Walker, C. J., Ryan, N., Fitzgerald, D., & Ramsden, M. F. (1990). Online Access to MEDLINE in Clinical Settings: A Study of Use and Usefulness. Annals of Internal Medicine. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-112-1-78

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.