Summary This study has attempted to compare the performances of the Iowa Drug Information Service (IDIS) and MEDLINE with respect to their ability to provide relevant information in response to specific requests for information received by Drug Information Centres. Measures of precision and relative recall have been calculated for both systems. The availability of the references retrieved, the suitability of the entry vocabulary, ease of use of the services, relative cost factors and timeliness of the services are discussed. The reasons for the failure of one system to retrieve references found by the other was investigated and an attempt made to assess the importance of the factors involved.

SUMMARY This study aimed to provide data on the characteristies of the drug literature abstracting service ‘Inpharma’. Journal coverage, article yield and timeliness for a 3‐year period were examined; the reliability and information content of 100 abstracts were also assessed. It was found that although ‘Inpharma’ is claimed to monitor a very large number of journals, over 98% of the abstracts were from ‘core’ journals of which there are approximately 350. Over 80% of the abstracts appeared within 4 months of publication of the original and abstracts from some of the American journals were available in the United Kingdom before the relevant primary journal. Sixteen errors were detected in 100 abstracts; five of these were typographical errors and nine deviations in accuracy. The publication is a good ‘current awareness tool’ but it should not be used where a comprehensive coverage of the literature is required. It is also important that the primary journal is consulted when detailed information is required.

No abstract