Medical Bibliographic Databases

  • Morris F. Collen
Part of the Health Informatics book series (HI)


Bibliographic databases function like the large card catalogs that were established by librarians to identify, describe, index, and classify citations, journals, and books, so that they could be effectively stored, retrieved, and used when needed. The user of an automated medical bibliographic database can enter a query into a search and retrieval program using a defined set of terms; and all citations that were indexed by these terms can then be retrieved. Bibliographic databases are primarily fact locators that point to information found elsewhere. Factual databases, like those of the NLM’s Hazardous Substance Data Bank (HSDB), its Genetics Sequence Data Bank (GenBank), and its Physicians’ Data Query (PDQ) are bibliographic databases that contain information on specific subjects, and are primarily fact providers.


Bibliographic Database Unify Medical Language System Medical Library Chemical Abstract Service Bibliographic Citation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Ackerman MJ. The Visible Human Project of the National Library of Medicine. MEDINFO. 1992;366–70.Google Scholar
  2. Ackerman MJ. The Visible Human Project; a resource for anatomical visualization. MEDINFO. 1998;1030–2.Google Scholar
  3. Austin CJ. MEDLARS 1963–1967. PHS Pub No. 1823. Washington, D.C.:US Government Print Office, HEW, NLM. 1968;1–68.Google Scholar
  4. Blake JB. From surgeon general’s bookshelf to National Library of Medicine: a brief history. Bull Med Libr Assoc. 1986;74:318–24.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Brahmi FA. MEDLINE retrieval: Grateful Med, Paperchase, and Physician’s Online. Proc AMIA. 1995;928.Google Scholar
  6. Cummings MM, Mehnert RB. MEDLARS services at the National Library of Medicine: public service or market commodity. Ann Intern Med. 1982;96:772–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. DeBakey ME. The National Library of Medicine: evolution of a premier information center. JAMA. 1991;266:1252–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Doszkocs TE, Rapp BA, Schoolman HM. Automated information retrieval in science and technology. Science 1980;208(Apr 4):25-30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Doszkocs TE. CITE NLM: natural-language searching in an online-catalog. Inf Technol Libr. 1983;2:364–80.Google Scholar
  10. Esterhay RJ. The technology of PDQ. Proc SCAMC. 1984;361–4.Google Scholar
  11. Feinglos SJ. MEDLINE at BRS, DIALOG, and NLM: is there a choice? Bull Med Libr Assoc. 1983;71:6–12.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Foote J. John Shaw Billings: a 19th-century information-age planner. Cite AB. 1994(June 13);2620–30.Google Scholar
  13. Gerling IC, Solomon SS, Bryer-Ash M. Genomes, transcriptomes, and proteomes. Arch Intern Med. 2003;163:190–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Haynes RB, McKibbon KA, Fitzgerald D, et al. How to keep up with the medical literature: IV. Using the literature to solve clinical problems. Ann Intern Med. 1986;105:636–40.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Hersh W, Hickam D. Information retrieval in medicine: the SAPHIRE experience. Proc MEDINFO. 95:1433–7.Google Scholar
  16. Horowitz GL, Bleich HL. PaperChase: a computer program to search the medical literature. N Engl J Med. 1981;305:924–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Horowitz GL, Jackson JD, Bleich HL. Paperchase: self-service bibliographic retrieval. JAMA. 1983;250:2494–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hubbard SM, Henney JE, DeVita VT. A computer data base for information on cancer treatment. N Engl J Med. 1987;316:315–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Humphreys BL, Lindberg DAB. Building the Unified Medical Language System. Proc SCAMC. 1989;473–89.Google Scholar
  20. Humphreys BL, Lindberg DAB, Hole WT. Assessing and enhancing the value of the UMLS knowledge sources. Proc AMIA. 1992;78–82.Google Scholar
  21. Humphreys BL, Hole WT, McCray AT, Fitzmaurice JM. Planned NLM/AHCPR large-scale vocabulary test: using UMLS technology to determine the extent to which controlled vocabularies cover terminology needed for health care and public health. JAMIA. 1996;3:281–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Humphreys BL, Lindberg DAB, Schoolman HM, Barnett GO. The unified medical language system: an informatics research collaboration. JAMIA. 1998;5:1–11.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Kreps GL The role of PDQ in disseminating cancer information. Proc MEDINFO. 1986;503–6.Google Scholar
  24. Lancaster FW. Evaluating the performance of a large computerized information system. JAMA. 1969;207:114–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lindberg DA. University of Missouri-Columbia. In: Lindberg DAB, editor. The growth of medical information systems in the United States, Chap 2. Lexington: Lexington Books; 1979.Google Scholar
  26. Lindberg DAB. Introduction. In: Broering NC, editor. Symposium on Integrated Academic Information Management Systems (IAIMS). Bull Med Libr Assoc. 1988;76:224–5.Google Scholar
  27. Lindberg DAB. Global information infrastructure. Int J BioMed Comput. 1994;34:13–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lindberg DAB. Medical computing high and low. JAMIA. 1995;2:337–41.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Lindberg DAB, Schoolman HM. The National Library of Medicine and medical informatics. West J Med. 1986;145:786–90.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Lindberg DAB, Humphreys BL. The UMLS knowledge sources: tools for building better user interfaces. Proc SCAMC. 1990;121–5.Google Scholar
  31. Lindberg DAB, Humphreys BL. The Unified Medical Language System (UMLS) and computer-based patient records. In: Ball MJ, Collen MF, editors. Aspects of the computer-based patient record. New York: Springer; 1992. p. 165–75.Google Scholar
  32. Lindberg DAB, Humphreys BL. The high performance computing and communications program, the National Information Infrastructure, and Health Care. JAMIA. 1995;2:156–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Lindberg DAB, Humphreys BL, McCray AT. The unified medical language system. Methods Inf Med. 1993;32:281–91.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Lowe HJ, Barnett GO. Understanding and using the Medical Subjects Headings (MeSH) vocabulary to perform literature searches. JAMA. 1994;271:1103–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lunin LF, Moerman M. Challenges and opportunities in joining a national Combined Health Information Database (CHID). Proc SCAMC. 1984;337–40.Google Scholar
  36. Marchisotto R, Walsh JA. A comprehensive biomedical information system. Proc MEDINFO. 1983;1983:917–20.Google Scholar
  37. Matheson NW. Introduction. In: Broering NC, editor. Symposium 0n Integrated Academic Information Management Systems (IAIMS). Bull Med Libr Assoc. 1988;76:222.Google Scholar
  38. McCray AT. The UMLS semantic network. Proc SCAMC. 1989;503–7.Google Scholar
  39. McCray AT. Extending a natural language parser with UMLS knowledge. Proc SCAMC. 1992;194–8.Google Scholar
  40. McCray AT. ASN.1: defining a grammar for the UMLS knowledge sources. Proc SCAMC. 1995;868–72.Google Scholar
  41. McCray AT. The nature of lexical knowledge. Methods Inf Med. 1998;37:353–60.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. McCray AT, Razi AM, Bangolore AK, et al. The UMLS knowledge source server: a versatile Internet-based research tool. Proc SCAMC. 1996;164–8.Google Scholar
  43. McCray AT, Bodenreider O, Malley JD, Browne AC. Evaluating UMLS strings for natural language processing. Proc AMIA. 2001;448–52.Google Scholar
  44. McKusick VA. Mendelian inheritance in man; catalog of autosomal dominant, autosomal recessive, and X-linked phenotypes. 8th ed. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press; 1988.Google Scholar
  45. Merz B. 700 genes mapped at world workshop. JAMA. 1989;262:175.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Miles WD. A history of the National Library of Medicine; The Nations Treasury of Medical Knowledge. NIH Pub. No. 82-1904. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office; 1982.Google Scholar
  47. NLM’s MEDLINE Logs Ten Millionth Journal Citation; NLM’s NEWSLINE 1999;54­(Apr-Sep); 2+3:2.Google Scholar
  48. Pao ML, Grefsheim SF, Barclay ML, et al. Factors affecting students’ use of MEDLINE. Comput Biomed Res. 1993;26:541–55.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Rada R, Calhoun E, Mill H, et al. A medical information thesaurus. Proc MEDINFO. 1986;1164–70.Google Scholar
  50. Rodnick JE. The most important computer tool in medical practice – online searching. NLM News. 1988(Apr-May):6–7.Google Scholar
  51. Smith KA. The National Library of Medicine: from MEDLARS to the sesquicentennial and beyond. Bull Med Libr Assoc. 1986;74:325–32.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Spitzer V, Ackerman MJ, Scherzinger AL, Whitlock D. The visible human male: a technical report. JAMIA. 1996;3:118–30.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Stephenson J. Scientists revel in new research tool: an online index of cancer genes. JAMA. 1997;278:1221–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Swyers JP. Genetic data base service. Research Resources Reporter. 1989(Dec);13–14.Google Scholar
  55. Taine SI. The medical literature analysis and retrieval system (MEDLARS) of the U.S. National Library of Medicine. Method Inf Med. 1963;2:65–9.Google Scholar
  56. Underhill LH, Bleich HL. Bringing the medical literature to physicians. West J Med. 1986;145:853–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Venter JC. Shotgun sequencing in a life decoded: my genome: my life, Chap 9. New York: Viking Press; 2007. p. 189–215.Google Scholar
  58. Wallingford KT, Humphreys BL, Selinger NE, Siegel ER. Bibliographic retrieval: a survey of individual users of MEDLINE. MD Comput. 1990;7:166–71.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Wood EH. MEDLINE: the options for health professionals. JAMIA. 1994;1:372–80.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Wood FB, Cid VH, Siegel ER. Evaluating Internet end-to-end performance. JAMIA. 1996;5:528–45.Google Scholar
  61. Wooster H. Biomedical communications, Chap 7, in Ann Rev Inform Sciences. Am Soc Inform Sci 1981:187–223.Google Scholar
  62. Zelingher J. Exploring the Internet. MD Comput. 1995;12:100–8. 144.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Morris F. Collen
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of ResearchOaklandUSA

Personalised recommendations