MEDLIB-L Archives

May 2001, Week 2


Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
"Klawansky, Susan" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Klawansky, Susan
Thu, 10 May 2001 16:23:58 -0700
text/plain (82 lines)
Thanks to those of you who offered your opinions on these two databases.
It's helped me make my decision.  For those interested, here is a summary of

MANTIS originally was a database with chiropractic information with some
additional literature in the osteopathic, physical medicine, and physical
therapy areas.  AMED includes a number of alternative treatment
specialities, including osteopathy, herbal, acupuncture, yoga, homeopathy,
and some allied health.  MANTIS orginates in the U.S. and AMED in Britain.
As a reference librarian in an osteopathic medicine school library, I use
both databases.

I've used both these databases and I think Mantis is the better of the two.
The journals indexed in Mantis are more accessible, peer reviewed type
materials, where as the material in AMED is pretty obscure.  Also, AMED
never seemed to have abstracts and frequently I found nothing at all.

They are very different indexes - I search both when hunting down
alternative info., and there is very little overlap. MANTIS used to be $69 a
year to search.  I have other access now, so I no longer know the cost. When
I was the library director at a college for acupuncture, massage therapy,
etc., I used to get AMED directly from the British Medical Library, on
floppies, rather than access it
through Dialog's DataStar.

MANTIS (Manual, Alternative and Natural Therapy) used to be called
ChiroLars, a chiropractic database. This is the homepage:   The producers say it "indexes
virtually all peer reviewed journals from manual,
chiropractic, and osteopathic medicine. There is particular emphasis placed
on research relating to the etiology, physiopathology, diagnosis, and
treatment of neuromusculoskeletal conditions (low back pain, headache,
scoliosis, nerve compression syndromes, sports injuries, etc.)."

AMED  AMED is quite different. It
is the alternative and  complementary medicine database produced by the
British Library. It has a print companion. It is very European in emphasis,
with a lot of pharmacognasy and herbal info, and many foreign language

I found MANTIS to be more slanted toward chiropractic and physical medicine,
and AMED toward other forms of alternative medicine.  I much prefer AMED.

MANTIS is the former CHIROLARS and as such its primary focus is on
chiropractic, manual therapies, rehabilitation, manipulation, etc. although
not to the exclusion of other "alternative" therapies. Its owner indexes a
wide variety of publications but very selectively. AMED is a broader
alternative medicine database produced in the UK; there is proportionately
less on manipulation & chiropractic, but more on herbs, homeopathy, etc. I
would call them complementary to each other if that wasn't a pun. There is
also a third index that focuses exclusively on chiropractic literature
called (oddly enough) Index to Chiropractic Literature.

I used all three of these for different purposes.

We subscribe to both through Ovid. There is crossover between the two. AMED
covers the European literature much better. MANTIS is strongest in its
coverage of manual therapies. One thing I don't like about it is that it
indexes some things cover to cover and others only selectively but it
doesn't tell you which is which. In OVID, it is keyword only which is a pain
at times.

Susan L. Klawansky, Librarian
Hospital Library CH-38
206-526-2098 (p)
Children's Hospital & Regional Medical Center
206-527-3838 (f)
P.O. Box 5371
[log in to unmask]
4800 Sand Point Way NE
Seattle, WA  98105