Literature DB >> 21854150

A comparison of answer retrieval through four evidence-based textbooks (ACP PIER, Essential Evidence Plus, First Consult, and UpToDate): a randomized controlled trial.

Seyed-Foad Ahmadi1, Masoomeh Faghankhani, Anna Javanbakht, Maryam Akbarshahi, Maryam Mirghorbani, Bahareh Safarnejad, Hamid Baradaran.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of bedside information products has not been properly evaluated, particularly in developing countries. AIM: To compare four evidence-based textbooks by comparing efficacy of their use by clinical residents, as measured by the proportion of questions for which relevant answers could be obtained within 20 min, the time to reach the answer and user satisfaction.
METHODS: One hundred and twelve residents were taught information mastery basics and were randomly allocated to four groups to use: (1) ACP PIER, (2) Essential Evidence Plus (formerly InfoRetriever), (3) First Consult, and (4) UpToDate. Participants received 3 of 24 questions randomly to retrieve the answers from the assigned textbook. Retrieved answers and time-to-answers were recorded by special designed software, and the researchers determined if each recorded answer was relevant.
RESULTS: The rate of answer retrieval was 86% in UpToDate, 69% in First Consult, 49% in ACP PIER, and 45% in Essential Evidence Plus (p < 0.001). The mean time-to-answer was 14.6 min using UpToDate, 15.9 min using First Consult, 16.3 min using Essential Evidence Plus, and 17.3 min using ACP PIER (p < 0.001).
CONCLUSION: UpToDate seems more comprehensive in content and also faster than the other three evidence-based textbooks. Thus, it may be considered as one of the best sources for answering clinicians' questions at the point of care.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21854150     DOI: 10.3109/0142159X.2010.531155

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Teach        ISSN: 0142-159X            Impact factor:   3.650


  8 in total

1.  Evaluating the appropriateness of electronic information resources for learning.

Authors:  Dinara Saparova; Nathanial S Nolan
Journal:  J Med Libr Assoc       Date:  2016-01

2.  Analysis of PubMed User Sessions Using a Full-Day PubMed Query Log: A Comparison of Experienced and Nonexperienced PubMed Users.

Authors:  Illhoi Yoo; Abu Saleh Mohammad Mosa
Journal:  JMIR Med Inform       Date:  2015-07-02

3.  Speed and accuracy of a point of care web-based knowledge resource for clinicians: a controlled crossover trial.

Authors:  David A Cook; Felicity Enders; Jane A Linderbaum; Dale Zwart; Farrell J Lloyd
Journal:  Interact J Med Res       Date:  2014-02-21

4.  Breadth of Coverage, Ease of Use, and Quality of Mobile Point-of-Care Tool Information Summaries: An Evaluation.

Authors:  Emily Johnson; Vamsi K Emani; Jinma Ren
Journal:  JMIR Mhealth Uhealth       Date:  2016-10-12       Impact factor: 4.773

5.  Meeting physicians' needs: a bottom-up approach for improving the implementation of medical knowledge into practice.

Authors:  Carla Vaucher; Emilie Bovet; Theresa Bengough; Vincent Pidoux; Michèle Grossen; Francesco Panese; Bernard Burnand
Journal:  Health Res Policy Syst       Date:  2016-07-18

6.  Comparison of the Impact of Wikipedia, UpToDate, and a Digital Textbook on Short-Term Knowledge Acquisition Among Medical Students: Randomized Controlled Trial of Three Web-Based Resources.

Authors:  Michael A Scaffidi; Rishad Khan; Christopher Wang; Daniela Keren; Cindy Tsui; Ankit Garg; Simarjeet Brar; Kamesha Valoo; Michael Bonert; Jacob F de Wolff; James Heilman; Samir C Grover
Journal:  JMIR Med Educ       Date:  2017-10-31

7.  Utilization and uptake of the UpToDate clinical decision support tool at the Makerere University College of Health Sciences (MakCHS), Uganda.

Authors:  Alison Annet Kinengyere; Julie Rosenberg; Olivia Pickard; Moses Kamya
Journal:  Afr Health Sci       Date:  2021-06       Impact factor: 0.927

8.  Features of effective medical knowledge resources to support point of care learning: a focus group study.

Authors:  David A Cook; Kristi J Sorensen; William Hersh; Richard A Berger; John M Wilkinson
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-11-25       Impact factor: 3.240

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.