MultiLink – An Intermediary System for Multi-Database Access

Abstract:

The design and implementation is described of MultiLink, a desktop system for direct enduser access to remote bibliographic information. The system is an application of a client-server technique based on a campuswide network, with the objective to assist end-users to accomplish the information — retrieval process by capturing knowledge and expertise for searches in query formulations. MultiLink, via intelligent interfaces, allows users to access several dozens of bibliographic databases. The application integrates regional, national and international resources, and brings library services to the user’s desktop level.

Key-Words

Bibliographic Information - Intermediary System - Multi-database Access - Search Strategies - User-interface

• REFERENCES

• 1 Ahlfeldt H, Alexandersson S, Billstrom R. et al. Information retrieval and computer communication within the faculty of health sciences in Linkoping, Sweden. In: Sixth Symposium on Human Interface. Tokyo: 1990: 499-506.
• 2 Wu G, Ahlfeldt H, Gill H, Wigertz O. A desktop system for medical information retrieval – an application of client-server techniques. In: MEDINFO 92. Lun KC, Degoulet P, Piemme TE, Rienhoff O. (eds). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publ; 1992: 376-81.
• 3 Hendrickson G, Anderson R, Clayton P. et al. The integrated academic information management system at Columbia-Presbyterian medical center. MD Computing 1992; 09: 35-42.
• 4 Santucci G, Bach E, Barber B. et al. Rationale for a community strategy in the fields of information and communications technologies applied to health care. Meth Inform Med 1990; 29: 84-91.
• 5 Laufmann S, Blumenthal R, Thompson L, Bowen B. Direct end-user access to remote information. SIGOIS Bulletin 1991; 12: 16-28.
• 6 Mischo W, Lee J. End-user searching of bibliographic databases. Ann Rev Inform Science Technol 1987; 22: 227-63.
• 7 Young C, Tang P, Annevelink J. An open architecture for development of a physician’s workstation. In: Proceedings of Symposium on Computer Applications in Medical Care. New York: IEEE Computer Society; 1991: 491-5.
• 8 Belkin N, Croft B. Retrieval techniques. Ann Rev Inform Science Technol 1987; 22: 109-45.
• 9 Lindberg DAB, Humphreys B. The UMLS knowledge sources: tools for building better user interfaces. In: Proceedings of Symposium on Computer Application in Medical Care. New York: IEEE Computer Society; 1990: 121-5.
• 10 Humphreys B, Lindberg DAB, Hole W. Assessing and enhancing the value of the UMLS knowledge sources. In: Proceedings of Symposium on Computer Application in Medical Care. New York: McCraw-Hill; 1991: 78-82.
• 11 Siu O, Nguyen S. Computerized transcription of searches from MEDLINE to an information manager package, SCI-MATE™. Comp Biomed Research 1989; 22: 546-51.
• 12 Alberico R, Micco M. Designing the user interface. In: Expert Systems for Reference and Information Retrieval. UK: Meckler Corporation; 1990
• 13 Loonsk J, Lively R, TinHan E, Litt H. Implementing the medical desktop: tools for the integration of independent information resources. In: Proceedings of Symposium on Computer Application in Medical Care. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1991: 574-7.
• 14 Fidel R. Searchers’ selection of search keys: 1. the selection routine. J Am Soc Inform Science 1991; 42: 490-500.
• 15 Bates M. Information search tactics. J Am Soc Inform Science 1979; 30: 205-14.
• 16 Nakkouzi Z, Eastman C. Query formulation for handling negation in information retrieval systems. J Am Soc Inform Science 1990; 41: 171-82.
• 17 Williams P, Goldstein G. A Completely automatic information retrieval system for the unskilled user. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Online Information Meeting. Oxford: Learned Information Ltd; 1982: 263-72.
• 18 Meadow C, Cerny B, Borgman C, Case D. Online access to knowledge: system design. J Am Soc Inform Science 1989; 40: 86-98.
• 19 Marcus R. An experimental comparison of the effectiveness of computers and humans as search intermediaries. J Am Soc Inform Science 1983; 34: 381-404.
• 20 Sewell W, Teitelbaum S. Observations of end-user online search behavior over eleven years. J Am Soc Inform Science 1986; 37: 234-45.
• 21 Kehoe C. Interfaces and expert systems for online retrieval. Online Review 1985; 09: 489-505.
• 22 Haynes B, McKibbon A. Grateful Med. MD Computing 1987; 04: 47-9.
• 23 Mitchell J, Johnson E, Hewett J, Proud V. Medical students using Grateful Med: analysis of failed searches and a six-month follow-up study. Comp Biomed Research 1992; 25: 43-55.
• 24 Walker C. Problems encountered by clinical end users of MEDLINE and Grateful Med. Bull Med Libr Assoc 1991; 79: 67-9.
• 25 Haynes B, McKibbon A, Walker C. et al. Online access to Medline in clinical settings. Ann Intern Med 1990; 112: 78-84.
• 26 McKibbon A, Haynes B, Walker CDilks. et al. How good are clinical MEDLINE searches! A comparative study of clinical enduser and librarian searches. Comp Biochem Research 1990; 23: 583-93.
• 27 Wyatt J, Spiegelhalter D. Evaluating medical decision aids: what to test and how. In: Systems Engineering in Medicine. Talmon J, Fox J. (eds). Berlin: Springer Verlag; 1990: 1-13.
• 28 Efthimiadis E. Online search aids: a review of front ends, gateways and other interfaces. J Documentation 1990; 46: 218-62.
• 29 Kingsland L, Syed E, Lindberg D. COACH: an expert searcher programme to assist Grateful Med users searching MEDLINE. In: MEDINFO 92. Lun KC, Degoulet P, Piemme TE, Rienhoff O. (eds). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publ; 1992: 382-6.
• 30 Silver J, Bellamy L, Selig S. Use of a CD-ROM based searching tool on a local area and campus wide network. In: Proceedings of Symposium on Computer Applications in Medical Care. New York: IEEE Computer Society; 1990: 384-8.
• 31 Hersh W, Greenes R. SAPHIRE – an information retrieval system featuring concept matching, automatic indexing, probabilistic retrieval, and hierarchical relationships. Comp Biomed Research 1990; 23: 410-25.
• 32 Lindberg DAB, Siegel E. On assessing the impact of medical information: does MEDLINE make a difference?. Meth Inform Med 1991; 30: 239-40.