This article has been The recent article by Wilkins et al on EMBASE versus MEDLINE for family medicine
searches1 clearly illustrates the importance
of searching both databases when a comprehensive search is needed, for example, when
writing grant proposals or preparing systematic reviews. College of Family Physicians of
Canada members who do not have access to EMBASE should be aware that they can request
EMBASE searches from the College’s library service. All members are entitled to five
free literature searches per year—searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, or any
combination of many databases.
Wilkins et al used Ovid MEDLINE; I usually use PubMed MEDLINE. It is interesting that
when the same search strategy Wilkins et al used for their sample search on urinary
tract infections is run in PubMed MEDLINE, it yields 73 references, as opposed to the 30
references from the Ovid MEDLINE search. The details appear in Table 1. Seventy-three references retrieved from PubMed MEDLINE compares favourably with
the 65 retrieved from EMBASE in Wilkins and colleagues’ article.
 | Table 1 Sample search using Ovid MEDLINE and PubMed MEDLINE |
I believe that a large part of the difference in number of articles retrieved from the
two MEDLINE databases is due to the different ways the “therapy” subheading is handled.
PubMed explodes the subheading “therapy” as well as the MeSH heading; Ovid MEDLINE does
not seem to do this.
I have not made a detailed comparison of Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed MEDLINE, and EMBASE
results, and I continue to believe that it is important to search both MEDLINE and
EMBASE when doing a comprehensive literature search.