ArticleJournal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA2006
An evaluation of five bedside information products using a user-centered, task-oriented approach.
Article 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 21 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
21 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparing the Use of DynaMed and UpToDate by Physician Trainees in Clinical Decision-Making: A Randomized Crossover Trial.Applied clinical informatics · 2022Trial
- Physiotherapists' Use of Web-Based Information Resources to Fulfill Their Information Needs During a Theoretical Examination: Randomized Crossover Trial.Journal of medical Internet research · 2020Trial
- Trial
- What do Australian primary care clinicians need to provide long-acting reversible contraception and early medical abortion? A content analysis of a virtual community of practice.BMJ sexual & reproductive health · 2025Article
- Feasibility, acceptability and impact of a clinical decision support tool among primary care providers in an urban, rural and remote site in the Philippines.BMJ open quality · 2024Article
- Focus on nursing point-of-care tools: application of a new evaluation rubric.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2022Article
- A comparative evaluation of three point-of-care tools by registered nurses.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2022Article
- Is Electronic Health Literacy Associated with Learning Outcomes among Medical Students in the First Clinical Year?: A Cross-Sectional Study.European journal of investigation in health, psychology and education · 2021Article
- Survey of Drug Information Database Preferences among Staff from Selected British Columbia Health Authorities.The Canadian journal of hospital pharmacy · 2020Article
- From Diabetes Care to Diabetes Cure-The Integration of Systems Biology, eHealth, and Behavioral Change.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2017Review
- Breadth of Coverage, Ease of Use, and Quality of Mobile Point-of-Care Tool Information Summaries: An Evaluation.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2016Article
- Evaluating the appropriateness of electronic information resources for learning.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2016Article
- Pharmacist perception and use of UpToDate®.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2014Article
- Features of effective medical knowledge resources to support point of care learning: a focus group study.PloS one · 2013Article
- Developing and using a rubric for evaluating evidence-based medicine point-of-care tools.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2011Article
- Type of evidence behind point-of-care clinical information products: a bibliometric analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2011Article
- A review of online evidence-based practice point-of-care information summary providers.Journal of medical Internet research · 2010Review
- Quality and usability of common drug information databases.The Canadian journal of hospital pharmacy · 2010Article
- Many family physicians will not manually update PDA software: an observational study.Informatics in primary care · 2009Article
- Evidence-based Medicine Search: a customizable federated search engine.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2008Article
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
Abstract
purposeThe paper compares several bedside information tools using user-centered, task-oriented measures to assist those making or supporting purchasing decisions.
methodsEighteen potential users were asked to attempt to answer clinical questions using five commercial products (ACP's PIER, DISEASEDEX, FIRSTConsult, InfoRetriever, and UpToDate). Users evaluated each tool for ease-of-use and user satisfaction. The average number of questions answered and user satisfaction were measured for each product.
resultsResults show no significant differences in user perceptions of content quality. However, user interaction measures (such as screen layout) show a significant preference for the UpToDate product. In addition, users found answers to significantly more questions using UpToDate.
conclusionWhen evaluating electronic products designed for use at the point of care, the user interaction aspects of a product become as important as more traditional content-based measures of quality. Actual or potential users of such products are appropriately equipped to identify which products rate the highest on these measures.
Indexed as
Identifiers
17082836PMC1629448What 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.