Comparison of the Utility of Korean Bibliographic Databases for Searching Domestic Literature Related to Microbiology and Infectious Diseases.
- Author:
Baek Nam KIM
1
Author Information
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords: Database; Bibliographic databases; Literature; Research; Medical informatics
- MeSH: Communicable Diseases; Databases, Bibliographic; Medical Informatics
- From: Infection and Chemotherapy 2009;41(1):20-29
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
- Abstract: BACKGROUNDS: Korean bibliographic databases are used to search and retrieve domestic literature for research purposes. However, doubts about their accuracy, completeness, and coverage have been raised since their development and implementation. There have been controversies as to which database is best for searching domestic medical literature. This study was conducted to investigate the usefulness of Korean bibliographic databases in identifying domestic literature related to microbiology and infectious diseases. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four bibliographic databases, including KoreaMed (www.koreamed.org), KISS (kiss.kstudy.com), KMbase (kmbase.medric.or.kr), and RISS (www.riss4u.net), were used for this study. One public bibliographic database, which discontinued its update, and other commercial database services were not evaluated. After performing searches utilizing representative terms related to microbiology and infectious diseases, numbers of retrieved results were compared. The results of bibliographic records gathered by using KoreaMed were compared with those of three other databases; only the journals published from 2001 to 2007 were taken into account. RESULTS: The number of search results retrieved by using each of the four databases ranged from 3 to 5,444 records depending on the search terms. In general, more search results were identified with KMbase and RISS than with KoreaMed and KISS. The concordance rate of the search results, utilizing the same search terms, between KoreaMed and three other databases ranged from 0% to 93.3%. Bibliographic errors including wrong order of authors, misspelled authors' names, use of the old journal title, and duplicate records were found in all databases. CONCLUSIONS: Total number of results obtained from each of the four Korean bibliographic databases using the same search terms was different and discordant. Researchers are recommended to take into account their characteristics and limitations when using Korean bibliographic databases for medical researches.
