Free Access
Med Sci (Paris)
Volume 18, Number 11, Novembre 2002
Page(s) 1107 - 1112
Section M/S Revues : Dossier Technique
Published online 15 November 2002
  1. Lawrence S, Giles CL. Searching the world wide Web. Science 1998; 280: 98–100. [Google Scholar]
  2. Lawrence S, Giles CL. Accessibility of information on the web. Nature 1999; 400: 107–9. [Google Scholar]
  3. Winship IR. World wide web searching tools - an evaluation. Vine 1995; 99: 49–54. [Google Scholar]
  4. Chu HT, Rosenthal M. Search engines for the world wide web: a comparative study and evaluation methodology. Proc ASIS Annu Meet 1996; 33: 127–35. [Google Scholar]
  5. Dong X, Su L. Search engines on the world wide web and information retrieval on the internet: a review and evaluation. Online CD ROM Rev 1997; 21: 67–81. [Google Scholar]
  6. Xie M, Wang H, Goh TN. Quality dimensions of internet search engines. J Inf Sci 1998; 24: 365–72. [Google Scholar]
  7. Wang H, Xie M, Goh TN. Service quality of internet search engines. J Inf Sci 1999; 25: 499–507. [Google Scholar]
  8. Akaho E, Ahmad SR. A comparative study of internet search engines by applying ’cost effective treatment for myocardial infarction’ as a search topic. Drug Inf J 1998; 32: 921–32. [Google Scholar]
  9. Wu G, Jie L. Comparing web search engine performance in searching consumer health information: evaluation and recommendations. Bull Med Libr Ass 1999; 87: 456–61. [Google Scholar]
  10. Page consultée le 12 septembre 2002. [Google Scholar]
  11. Ding A, Marchionini G. Comparative study of web search service performance. Proc ASIS Annu Meet 1996; 33: 136–42. [Google Scholar]
  12. Venditto G. Search engine showdown. Internet World 1996; 7: 79–86. [Google Scholar]
  13. Clarke SJ, Willett P. Estimating the recall performance of web search engines. Aslib Proc 1997; 49: 184–9. [Google Scholar]
  14. Oppenheim C, Morris A, McKnight C. The evaluation of WWW search engines. J Doc 2000; 56: 190–211. [Google Scholar]
  15. Landoni M, Bell S. Information retrieval techniques for evaluating search engines: a critical overview. Aslib Proc 2000; 52: 124–9. [Google Scholar]
  16. Chignell MH, Gwizdka J, Bodner RC. Discriminating meta-search: a framework for evaluation. Inf Process Manag 1999; 35: 337–62. [Google Scholar]
  17. Green R. Topical relevance relationships. Why topic matching fails. J Am Soc Inf Sci 1995; 6: 646–53. [Google Scholar]
  18. Hawking D, Craswell N, Thistlewaite P, Harman D. Results and challenges in web search evaluation. Comput Networks 1999; 31: 1321–30. [Google Scholar]
  19. Gardner M. A scienceoriented search engine could solve problems. Nature 1999; 401: 111. [Google Scholar]
  20. Shon J, Musen MA. The low availability of metadata elements for evaluating the quality of medical information on the world wide web. Proc AMIA Symp 1999; 1945–9. [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.