The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Online Access to MEDLINE in Clinical Settings: A Study of Use and Usefulness
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
Gagnon, M.-P., Desmartis, M., Labrecque, M., Car, J., Pagliari, C., Pluye, P., Frémont, P., Gagnon, J., Tremblay, N., & Légaré, F. (2012) · Journal of Medical Systems · doi:10.1007/s10916-010-9473-4 · Cited by 637
More informative abstracts revisited.
Haynes, R. B., Mulrow, C. D., Huth, E. J., Altman, D. G., & Gardner, M. J. (1990) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-113-1-69 · Cited by 526
Self-citationLowe, H. J. (1994) · JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association · doi:10.1001/jama.1994.03510380059038 · Cited by 468
Is the coverage of google scholar enough to be used alone for systematic reviews
Gehanno, J.-F., Rollin, L., & Darmoni, S. (2013) · BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making · doi:10.1186/1472-6947-13-7 · Cited by 357
Finding and Applying Evidence During Clinical Rounds<SUBTITLE>The "Evidence Cart"</SUBTITLE>
Sackett, D. L. (1998) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.280.15.1336 · Cited by 332
Metadata
- Authors
- Haynes, R. B., McKibbon, K. A., Walker, C. J., Ryan, N., Fitzgerald, D., & Ramsden, M. F.
- Venue
- Annals of Internal Medicine
- Publisher
- American College of Physicians
- 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.