PURPOSE: This paper appraises empirical studies examining the impact of clinical information-retrieval technology on physicians and medical students. METHODS: The world literature was reviewed up to February 2004. Two reviewers independently identified studies by scrutinising 3368 and 3249 references from bibliographic databases. Additional studies were retrieved by hand searches, and by searching ISI Web of Science for citations of articles. Six hundred and five paper-based articles were assessed for relevance. Of those, 40 (6.6%) were independently appraised by two reviewers for relevance and methodological quality. These articles were quantitative, qualitative or of mixed methods, and 26 (4.3%) were retained for further analysis. For each retained article, two teams used content analysis to review extracted textual material (quantitative results and qualitative findings). RESULTS: Observational studies suggest that nearly one-third of searches using information-retrieval technology may have a positive impact on physicians. Two experimental and three laboratory studies do not reach consensus in support of a greater impact of this technology compared with other sources of information, notably printed educational material. Clinical information-retrieval technology may affect physicians, and further research is needed to examine its impact in everyday practice.
PURPOSE: This paper appraises empirical studies examining the impact of clinical information-retrieval technology on physicians and medical students. METHODS: The world literature was reviewed up to February 2004. Two reviewers independently identified studies by scrutinising 3368 and 3249 references from bibliographic databases. Additional studies were retrieved by hand searches, and by searching ISI Web of Science for citations of articles. Six hundred and five paper-based articles were assessed for relevance. Of those, 40 (6.6%) were independently appraised by two reviewers for relevance and methodological quality. These articles were quantitative, qualitative or of mixed methods, and 26 (4.3%) were retained for further analysis. For each retained article, two teams used content analysis to review extracted textual material (quantitative results and qualitative findings). RESULTS: Observational studies suggest that nearly one-third of searches using information-retrieval technology may have a positive impact on physicians. Two experimental and three laboratory studies do not reach consensus in support of a greater impact of this technology compared with other sources of information, notably printed educational material. Clinical information-retrieval technology may affect physicians, and further research is needed to examine its impact in everyday practice.
Authors: R Brian Haynes; Jennifer Holland; Chris Cotoi; R James McKinlay; Nancy L Wilczynski; Leslie A Walters; Dawn Jedras; Rick Parrish; K Ann McKibbon; Amit Garg; Stephen D Walter Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2006-08-23 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Guilherme Del Fiol; Peter J Haug; James J Cimino; Scott P Narus; Chuck Norlin; Joyce A Mitchell Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2008-08-28 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Bret S E Heale; Casey Lynnette Overby; Guilherme Del Fiol; Wendy S Rubinstein; Donna R Maglott; Tristan H Nelson; Aleksandar Milosavljevic; Christa L Martin; Scott R Goehringer; Robert Freimuth; Marc S Williams Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2016-08-31 Impact factor: 2.342
Authors: Pierre Pluye; Roland M Grad; Janique Johnson-Lafleur; Vera Granikov; Michael Shulha; Bernard Marlow; Ivan Luiz Marques Ricarte Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2013 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Guilherme Del Fiol; Javed Mostafa; Dongqiuye Pu; Richard Medlin; Stacey Slager; Siddhartha R Jonnalagadda; Charlene R Weir Journal: Int J Med Inform Date: 2015-11-21 Impact factor: 4.046