" The book is divided into three sections. The first section covers the basic concepts of information science. The first chapter provides basic definitions and models that will be used throughout the book. The next chapter gives an overview of health and biomedical information, covering issues related to its generation and use. The third chapter discusses the evaluation of IR systems, highlighting the methods and their limitations. ... The second section covers the current state-of-the-art in commercial and other widely used retrieval systems. The first chapter in this section gives an overview of the great deal of content that is currently available. Next come chapters on the two fundamental intellectual tasks of IR, indexing and retrieval. The predominant paradigms of each are discussed in detail. The final chapter covers evaluation of these systems. ... The third section covers the major threads of research and development in efforts to build better IR systems. The focus is initially on details of indexing and retrieval, with a chapter each on the two major thrusts, which are lexical-statistical and linguistic systems. In the next chapter, a survey of various efforts to augment other systems is described. This is followed by a chapter on information extraction, a topic of growing importance. Throughout this section, a theme of implementational feasibility and evaluation is maintained. "

" OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of clinicians' use of an online information retrieval system on their performance in answering clinical questions. DESIGN: Pre-/post-intervention experimental design. MEASUREMENTS: In a computer laboratory, 75 clinicians (26 hospital-based doctors, 18 family practitioners, and 31 clinical nurse consultants) provided 600 answers to eight clinical scenarios before and after the use of an online information retrieval system. We examined the proportion of correct answers pre- and post-intervention, direction of change in answers, and differences between professional groups. RESULTS: System use resulted in a 21% improvement in clinicians' answers, from 29% (95% confidence interval [CI] 25.4-32.6) correct pre- to 50% (95% CI 46.0-54.0) post-system use. In 33% (95% CI 29.1-36.9) answers were changed from incorrect to correct. In 21% (95% CI 17.1-23.9) correct pre-test answers were supported by evidence found using the system, and in 7% (95% CI 4.9-9.1) correct pre-test answers were changed incorrectly. For 40% (35.4-43.6) of scenarios, incorrect pre-test answers were not rectified following system use. Despite significant differences in professional groups' pre-test scores [family practitioners: 41% (95% CI 33.0-49.0), hospital doctors: 35% (95% CI 28.5-41.2), and clinical nurse consultants: 17% (95% CI 12.3-21.7; chi(2) = 29.0, df = 2, p < 0.01)], there was no difference in post-test scores. (chi(2) = 2.6, df = 2, p = 0.73). CONCLUSIONS: The use of an online information retrieval system was associated with a significant improvement in the quality of answers provided by clinicians to typical clinical problems. In a small proportion of cases, use of the system produced errors. While there was variation in the performance of clinical groups when answering questions unaided, performance did not differ significantly following system use. Online information retrieval systems can be an effective tool in improving the accuracy of clinicians' answers to clinical questions. "

" OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of clinicians' use of an online information retrieval system on their performance in answering clinical questions. DESIGN: Pre-/post-intervention experimental design. MEASUREMENTS: In a computer laboratory, 75 clinicians (26 hospital-based doctors, 18 family practitioners, and 31 clinical nurse consultants) provided 600 answers to eight clinical scenarios before and after the use of an online information retrieval system. We examined the proportion of correct answers pre- and post-intervention, direction of change in answers, and differences between professional groups. RESULTS: System use resulted in a 21% improvement in clinicians' answers, from 29% (95% confidence interval [CI] 25.4-32.6) correct pre- to 50% (95% CI 46.0-54.0) post-system use. In 33% (95% CI 29.1-36.9) answers were changed from incorrect to correct. In 21% (95% CI 17.1-23.9) correct pre-test answers were supported by evidence found using the system, and in 7% (95% CI 4.9-9.1) correct pre-test answers were changed incorrectly. For 40% (35.4-43.6) of scenarios, incorrect pre-test answers were not rectified following system use. Despite significant differences in professional groups' pre-test scores [family practitioners: 41% (95% CI 33.0-49.0), hospital doctors: 35% (95% CI 28.5-41.2), and clinical nurse consultants: 17% (95% CI 12.3-21.7; chi(2) = 29.0, df = 2, p < 0.01)], there was no difference in post-test scores. (chi(2) = 2.6, df = 2, p = 0.73). CONCLUSIONS: The use of an online information retrieval system was associated with a significant improvement in the quality of answers provided by clinicians to typical clinical problems. In a small proportion of cases, use of the system produced errors. While there was variation in the performance of clinical groups when answering questions unaided, performance did not differ significantly following system use. Online information retrieval systems can be an effective tool in improving the accuracy of clinicians' answers to clinical questions. "

" OBJECTIVE: To compare the performances of online and compact-disc (CD-ROM) versions of the National Library of Medicine's (NLM) MEDLINE database. DESIGN: Analytic survey. INTERVENTION: Clinical questions were drawn from 18 searches originally conducted spontaneously by clinicians from wards and clinics who had used Grateful Med Version 4.0. Clinicians' search strategies were translated to meet the specific requirements of 13 online and 14 CD-ROM MEDLINE systems. A senior librarian and vendors' representatives constructed independent searches from the clinicians' questions. The librarian and clinician searches were run through each system, in command mode for the librarian and menu mode for clinicians, when available. Vendor searches were run through the vendors' own systems only. MAIN MEASUREMENTS: Numbers of relevant and irrelevant citations retrieved, cost (for online systems only), and time. RESULTS: Systems varied substantially for all searches, and for librarian and clinician searches separately, with respect to the numbers of relevant and irrelevant citations retrieved (p < 0.001 for both) and the cost per relevant citation (p = 0.012), but not with respect to the time per search. Based on combined rankings for the highest number of relevant and the lowest number of irrelevant citations retrieved, the SilverPlatter CD-ROM MEDLINE clinical journal subset performed best for librarian searches, while the PaperChase online system worked best for clinician searches. For cost per relevant citation retrieved, Dialog's Knowledge Index performed best for both librarian and clinician searches. CONCLUSIONS: There were substantial differences in the performances of competing MEDLINE systems, and performance was affected by search strategy, which was conceived by a librarian or by clinicians. "