Medline via Paperchase statt DIMDI?

[logies _at__ ml.in-berlin.de (Michael Logies)]

Hallo,

ich wollte 'mal fragen, ob die Moeglichkeiten des Internet schon irgendwo  
dazu gefuehrt haben, dass statt nationaler hosts wie DIMDI solche auf dem  
Net gewaehlt wurden.
Medline ist nach meinen Erfahrungen (individuelle Nutzung, geringes  
Datenaufkommen, daher keine ausgepraegten Rabatte bei DIMDI trotz  
Studententarifs) bei Paperchase ungefaehr 1/10 so teuer wie bei DIMDI.
Paperchase (Harvard Medical School) kostet nach 19.00 Uhr 18 $/h (sonst 24  
$/h), unabhaengig von den pro Zeit uebertragenen Datenmengen. Paperchase  
ist ueber Compuserve zu erreichen und Compuserve seit kurzem via telnet  
compuserve.com.
Ob es einen direkten Weg zu Paperchase gibt, ist mir nicht bekannt. Weiss  
jemand mehr?

Von Compuserve (go medsig) kann ich noch das folgende beisteuern.
Der im Text erwaehnte host Knowledge Index ist auch bei Compuserve  
verfuegbar. Ich arbeite allerding lieber mit der Oberflaeche von  
Paperchase. Da Knowledge Index aber eine Fuelle von Datenbanken zu  
guenstigsten Preisen liefert, kann ich nur empfehlen, da einmal  
hereinzuschauen (Feierabendhost, nur zwischen 19.00 Uhr und 8.00 Uhr  
Ortszeit verfuegbar).

Michael Logies


#: 249241 S11/Informatics
    01-Jun-94  03:03:35
Sb: PCH Revisited
Fm: frank meissner,md 71333,3377
To: ALL

(...)
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association May/Jun 1994
"Performances of 27 MEDLINE Systems Tested by Searches With Clinical Questions
R. Brian Haynes, et al .............

Abstract
Objective: To compare the performances of online and compact-disc (CD-ROM)
versions of the National Library of Medicine MEDLINE database.
Design: Analytic Survey
Setting: Health Information Research Unit, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont,
Canada
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. Clinician's search strategies were translated to meet the
specific
requirements of 13 online and 14 CD-ROM MEDLINE systems. A senior librarian
and vendor's representatives constructed independent searches from the
clinician's 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 searches only), and time.

Results: Systems varied substantially for all searches, and for librarian
and clinician searches seperately, with respect to numbers of relevant and
irrelevant citations retrieved (p<0.001 for both) and the cost per citatioin
(p=0.012), but not with respect to time per search. Based on combined rankings
for the highest number of relevant and the lowest number of irrelevant
searches
retrieved, the Silver Platter 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 searches retrieved, Dialog's
Knowledge Index performed best for both librarian and clinician searhces.

Conclusions: There were substantial differences in the performances of
competing MEDLINE systems, and performance was affected by search strategy,
which was concieved by the librarian or by clinicians.



SYSTEMS TESTED:
NLM Direct
Grateful Med PC & MAC versions
BRS
BRS After Dark
BRS Colleague
DIALOG
DIALOG Medical COnnection
Knowledge Index
Pro-search - DIALOG
Pro-search - BRS
PaperChase
Data-Star


CD-ROM SYSTEMS:
Compace Cambridge- monthly and quarterly
CD Plus
Silver Platter - unabridged & subset
EBSCO CD-ROM- unabridged & subset
BiblioMed
BiblioMed Professional test version
DIALOG onDisc - unabridged & subset
ARIES knowledge Finder- monthly,quarterly, & subset


frank meissner,md medsig sysop



logies _at__ ml.in-berlin.de
## CrossPoint v3.02 ##