ReviewJournal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA2006
How do primary care physicians seek answers to clinical questions? A literature review.
Review in Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 105 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
105 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Pooled it
- The Online Health Information Needs of Family Physicians: Systematic Review of Qualitative and Quantitative Studies.Journal of medical Internet research · 2020Pooled it
- Barriers and facilitators to clinical information seeking: a systematic review.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2019Pooled it
- Describing knowledge encounters in healthcare: a mixed studies systematic review and development of a classification.Implementation science : IS · 2017Pooled it
- What is the effectiveness of printed educational materials on primary care physician knowledge, behaviour, and patient outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analyses.Implementation science : IS · 2015Pooled it
- Effects of librarian-provided services in healthcare settings: a systematic review.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIAPooled it
- Lost in translation? A multilingual Query Builder improves the quality of PubMed queries: a randomised controlled trial.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2017Trial
- Using a systematic review in clinical decision making: a pilot parallel, randomized controlled trial.Implementation science : IS · 2015Trial
- Decision making in family medicine: randomized trial of the effects of the InfoClinique and Trip database search engines.Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien · 2013Trial
- Reinforcing outpatient medical student learning using brief computer tutorials: the Patient-Teacher-Tutorial sequence.BMC medical education · 2012Trial
- Comparing patient characteristics, type of intervention, control, and outcome (PICO) queries with unguided searching: a randomized controlled crossover trial.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2012Trial
- A cost-consequences analysis of a primary care librarian question and answering service.PloS one · 2012Trial
- Article
- Perceptions of digital medical information services applying new technologies.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2026Article
- Dr. LLM Will See You Now: The Ability of ChatGPT to Provide Geographically Tailored Colorectal Cancer Screening and Surveillance Recommendations.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Characterizing Core Journals in Ophthalmology Literature Using Bradford's Law: A Bibliometric Analysis.Journal of academic ophthalmology (2017) · 2025Article
- Exploring the Information Sources Consulted by Doctors at the Point of Care in Four Selected South African Referral Hospitals.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Observing the behavioural effects of methylphenidate in children and adolescents with ASD-ADHD dual diagnosis: A mini review.Frontiers in child and adolescent psychiatry · 2023Review
- Article
- Literature search: Simple rules for confronting theMedical journal, Armed Forces India · 2022Review
45 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe authors investigated the extent to which changes occurred between 1992 and 2005 in the ways that primary care physicians seek answers to clinical problems. What search strategies are used? How much time is spent on them? How do primary care physicians evaluate various search activities and information sources? Can a clinical librarian be useful to a primary care physician?
methodsTwenty-one original research papers and three literature reviews were examined. No systematic reviews were identified.
resultsPrimary care physicians seek answers to only a limited number of questions about which they first consult colleagues and paper sources. This practice has basically not changed over the years despite the enormous increase in and better accessibility to electronic information sources. One of the major obstacles is the time it takes to search for information. Other difficulties primary care physicians experience are related to formulating an appropriate search question, finding an optimal search strategy, and interpreting the evidence found. Some studies have been done on the supporting role of a clinical librarian in general practice. However, the effects on professional behavior of the primary care physician and on patient outcome have not been studied. A small group of primary care physicians prefer this support to developing their own search skills. DISCUSSION: Primary care physicians have several options for finding quick answers: building a question-and-answer database, consulting filtered information sources, or using an intermediary such as a clinical librarian.
Indexed as
Identifiers
16404470PMC1324772What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.