ReviewAMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium2005
A new impact assessment method to evaluate knowledge resources.
Review in AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- 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
- Just-in-time information improved decision-making in primary care: a randomized controlled trial.PloS one · 2008Trial
- When Educational Material Is Delivered: A Mixed Methods Content Validation Study of the Information Assessment Method.JMIR medical education · 2017Article
- Cognitive impact assessment of electronic knowledge resources: a mixed methods evaluation study of a handheld prototype.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2006Article
- Impact of research-based synopses delivered as daily e-mail: a prospective observational study.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIAArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
rationaleMethods to systematically measure the impact of knowledge resources on health professionals would enhance evaluation of these resources in the real world.
objectiveTo propose a new impact assessment method.
backgroundWe demonstrated the feasibility of combining a 4-level scale with Computerized Ecological Momentary Assessment (CEMA) for efficiently measuring the impact of a knowledge resource.
methodWe critically reviewed the world literature regarding the impact of clinical information-retrieval technology on trainees and doctors, and retained 26 papers for qualitative content analysis.
findingsOf those, 21 use a nominal scale (yes/no), none systematically measures the impact of searches for information outside of a laboratory setting, and none uses an ordinal scale. The literature supports the proposed levels of impact, and suggests a fifth level.
conclusionA new impact assessment method is proposed, which combines a 5-level revised scale and CEMA.
Indexed as
Identifiers
16779112PMC1560543What 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.