Evidence map›Paper›PMID 10566402›Full record

ArticleProceedings. AMIA Symposium1999

Medcast: evaluation of an intelligent pull technology to support the information needs of physicians.

J G Anderson, L L Casebeer, R E Kristofco

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings. AMIA Symposium, 1999. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

J G AndersonPurdue University, USA.
L L Casebeer
R E Kristofco

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study reports the initial results of an evaluation of Medcast, a commercial medical information service that uses intelligent pull technology to deliver medical information to practicing physicians. Medical news, CME, and other information are transferred by modem nightly to the physician's computers where this information can be accessed at a convenient time. A survey was faxed to 195 subscribers to the system. A total of 73 (39%) responded. The results indicate that prior to implementation of the Medcast system, almost 40 percent of the respondents did not use their computers for professional activities because of time constraints, costs and computer literacy problems. After implementation of Medcast, almost 70 percent of the respondents used the system two or more hours per week. Ninety percent of the respondents felt that use of the system has enhanced their practice. These findings have important implications for future efforts to implement medical informatics applications to support the information needs of practicing physicians. Experience with intelligent pull technology that is relatively easy to use may be a good way to break down attitudes and barriers to the use of computer systems to support clinical practice and may prepare physicians for a wider use of the Internet to support their future information needs.

Indexed as

Attitude to ComputersInformation ServicesPhysiciansAlabamaCardiologyComputer LiteracyConsumer BehaviorData CollectionEducation, Medical, ContinuingEvaluation Studies as TopicFamily PracticeInternal MedicineInternetLearning

Identifiers

PMID10566402
PMCPMC2232552

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.