Completeness and accuracy of WWW-based catalogues of medical E-learning modules.

Jürgen Stausberg, Kevin Bludssat, Martin Geueke
{"title":"Completeness and accuracy of WWW-based catalogues of medical E-learning modules.","authors":"Jürgen Stausberg,&nbsp;Kevin Bludssat,&nbsp;Martin Geueke","doi":"10.1080/14639230500193647","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Catalogues of medical E-learning modules offer easy access to learning material that is available on the World Wide Web (WWW) free of charge. Therefore, a study was conducted on the retrieval performance of four WWW-based catalogues: CAL reviews, KELDAmed, LMU, and LRSMed. LRSMed is run by the authors. Completeness was calculated pairwise. Two reviewers checked the availability of 80 modules independently. Five criteria were chosen to calculate accuracy: gynaecology and microbiology as medical fields; case study as type of learning resource; diabetes mellitus and AIDS as free-text diagnoses. Also, two reviewers evaluated independently whether the module is really an appropriate resource for that criterion or not. The analysis is based on a consensual decision about the correct votes. From the URLs, 93% were available at the evaluation of completeness, 92% at the evaluation of accuracy. The kappa values for inter-rater reliability were 0.83 and 0.36. The best service offers 60.8% of the pooled E-learning resources. The resources retrieved by the five criteria were rated as correct in 69.3% (LRSMed), 76.6% (KELDAmed), and 82.7% (CAL reviews). The overall accuracy was 76.7%. Medical students and other potential users of E-learning modules should be aware that the completeness of WWW-based catalogues in this area is not satisfying. The retrieval accuracy is better; four of five resources offered correspond with the search criterion. Up to now, most of the services miss an application-programming interface that could be used for a meta-search to improve completeness.</p>","PeriodicalId":80069,"journal":{"name":"Medical informatics and the Internet in medicine","volume":"30 3","pages":"195-202"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2005-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/14639230500193647","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical informatics and the Internet in medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14639230500193647","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Catalogues of medical E-learning modules offer easy access to learning material that is available on the World Wide Web (WWW) free of charge. Therefore, a study was conducted on the retrieval performance of four WWW-based catalogues: CAL reviews, KELDAmed, LMU, and LRSMed. LRSMed is run by the authors. Completeness was calculated pairwise. Two reviewers checked the availability of 80 modules independently. Five criteria were chosen to calculate accuracy: gynaecology and microbiology as medical fields; case study as type of learning resource; diabetes mellitus and AIDS as free-text diagnoses. Also, two reviewers evaluated independently whether the module is really an appropriate resource for that criterion or not. The analysis is based on a consensual decision about the correct votes. From the URLs, 93% were available at the evaluation of completeness, 92% at the evaluation of accuracy. The kappa values for inter-rater reliability were 0.83 and 0.36. The best service offers 60.8% of the pooled E-learning resources. The resources retrieved by the five criteria were rated as correct in 69.3% (LRSMed), 76.6% (KELDAmed), and 82.7% (CAL reviews). The overall accuracy was 76.7%. Medical students and other potential users of E-learning modules should be aware that the completeness of WWW-based catalogues in this area is not satisfying. The retrieval accuracy is better; four of five resources offered correspond with the search criterion. Up to now, most of the services miss an application-programming interface that could be used for a meta-search to improve completeness.

基于www的医学电子学习模块目录的完整性和准确性。
医学电子学习模块目录提供了方便的途径,可以免费获取万维网上提供的学习材料。因此,我们研究了四个基于www的目录:CAL reviews、KELDAmed、LMU和LRSMed的检索性能。LRSMed由作者管理。完整性是两两计算的。两名审稿人独立审核了80个模块的可用性。选择五个标准来计算准确性:妇科和微生物学作为医学领域;案例研究作为一种学习资源糖尿病和艾滋病作为自由文本诊断。另外,两个审阅者独立地评估该模块是否真的是满足该标准的合适资源。分析是基于对正确选票的一致决定。从url中,93%在完整性评估中可用,92%在准确性评估中可用。信度kappa值分别为0.83和0.36。最好的服务提供了60.8%的在线学习资源。五个标准检索到的资源的正确率分别为69.3% (LRSMed)、76.6% (KELDAmed)和82.7% (CAL)。总体准确率为76.7%。医学生和电子学习模块的其他潜在用户应该意识到,在这一领域,基于万维网的目录的完整性并不令人满意。检索精度较高;提供的五个资源中有四个符合搜索条件。到目前为止,大多数服务都缺少可用于元搜索以提高完整性的应用程序编程接口。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信