Evidence map›Paper›PMID 11079844›Full record

Trial reportProceedings. AMIA Symposium2000

Design and analysis of a Web-based guideline tutorial system that emphasizes clinical trial evidence.

D S Bell, C M Mangione

Abstract readClinical TrialRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC
In one paragraph

Trial report in Proceedings. AMIA Symposium, 2000. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

2 authors.

D S BellDivision of General Internal Medicine and Health Services Research, Department of Medicine, UCLA School of Medicine, Los Angeles, California, USA.
C M Mangione

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo describe a Web-based guideline tutorial system and evaluate its features.

methodsA Web-based tutorial system called SAGE (Self-study Acceleration with Graphic Evidence) was constructed to teach knowledge important for care after myocardial infarction. SAGE features a pretest, followed by an overview that coordinates studying resources for a set of learning objectives. Resources include pretest answers, guideline passages, and graphical presentations of clinical trial results. Data on the use of SAGE was obtained from 79 residents participating in a larger trial. Linear regression was used to correlate the amount learned with resource-use, and resource-use with user characteristics.

resultsOn average, users accessed less than half of the guideline passages and very little of the graphic evidence. Greater use of guideline passages was correlated with greater immediate learning, but use of graphic evidence was not.

conclusionsFurther research is needed to motivate more thorough self-study and to integrate clinical trial evidence with guideline-based education.

Indexed as

Computer-Assisted InstructionComputer GraphicsFamily PracticeHumansInternal MedicineInternetInternship and ResidencyLinear ModelsMyocardial InfarctionPractice Guidelines as TopicRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSoftware

Identifiers

PMID11079844
PMCPMC2243800

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.