Evidence map›Paper›PMID 12113514›Full record

ReviewJournal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA2002

When less is more: a practical approach to searching for evidence-based answers.

Karen K Grandage, David C Slawson, Allen F Shaughnessy

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA, 2002. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Classifying information-sharing methods.BMC medical research methodology · 2021
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Unanswered clinical questions: a survey of specialists and primary care providers.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2017
    Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. An iterative evaluation of two shortened systematic review formats for clinicians: a focus group study.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2014
    Article
  13. Evaluating factors affecting the implementation of evidence based medicine in primary healthcare centers in Dubai.Saudi pharmaceutical journal : SPJ : the official publication of the Saudi Pharmaceutical Society · 2014
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Evidence-based resources simplified.Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien · 2008
    Article
  18. Evaluating the professional libraries of practicing physical therapists.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2007
    Article
  19. Article
  20. A clinically rooted approach to Knowledge Management in a large Italian community hospital.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2003
    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.

Karen K GrandageCalude Moore Health Sciences Library, University of Virginia, Charlottesville 22908, USA. kgrandage@virginia.edu
David C Slawson
Allen F Shaughnessy

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The information needs of practicing clinicians are distinct from the needs of students, researchers, or nonclinical personnel. Clinicians seek information to stay current with new relevant medical developments and to find answers to patient-specific questions. The volume of available information makes clinicians' tasks of rapidly identifying high-quality studies daunting. New tools evaluate the rigor and relevance of information and summarize it in the form of synthesized clinical answers. These sources have the opposite focus of many other information tools in that they strive to provide less information rather than more. With the development of these sources of validated and refined information, a new search approach is needed to locate clinical information in which speed is the benchmark. The existing medical literature, including these new refinement tools, can be conceptualized as a pyramid, with the most useful information, based on validity and relevance, placed at the apex. Use of this hierarchy allows searchers to drill down through progressive layers until they find their answers. Librarians can play a significant role in evaluating the ever-increasing variety of these synthesized resources, placing them into the searching hierarchy, and training clinicians to search from the top down.

Indexed as

Evidence-Based MedicineAttitude of Health PersonnelHumansInformation Storage and RetrievalInservice TrainingLibrariansLibraries, MedicalLibrary ServicesPhysiciansUnited States

Identifiers

PMID12113514
PMCPMC116402

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.