ArticleJournal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA2007
A comparison of primary care information content in UpToDate and the National Guideline Clearinghouse.
Article in Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- Assessing the Performance of a Novel Bayesian Algorithm at Point of Care for Red Eye Complaints.Vision (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Evaluating the Diagnostic Accuracy of a Novel Bayesian Decision-Making Algorithm for Vision Loss.Vision (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Evaluating the appropriateness of electronic information resources for learning.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2016Article
- Article
- 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
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe study sought to determine if two major resources for primary care questions have significant differences in information content and whether the number of documents found differs by disease category, patient age, or patient gender.
methodsSeven hundred fifty-two questions were randomly selected from the Clinical Questions Collection of the National Library of Medicine. UpToDate and the National Guidelines Clearinghouse (NGC) were searched utilizing keywords from the questions. The number of documents retrieved for each question in the resources was recorded. Chi-squared analysis was used to compare differences in retrieval between the resources. Logistic regression was used to evaluate the effect of patient age, patient gender, or disease category on the ability to find content.
resultsUpToDate returned 1 or more documents for 580 questions, while NGC returned at least 1 document for 493 questions (77.1% versus 65.5% of question sampled, P = 0.001). In combination, the 2 resources returned content for 91% of searches (n = 685). NGC retrieved a mean of 16.3 documents per question versus 8.7 documents from UpToDate. Disease category was the only variable having a significant impact on the presence of online resource content.
conclusionsUpToDate had greater breadth of content than NGC, while neither resource provided complete coverage. Current practice guidelines, as reflected by those in the NGC, addressed at most two-thirds of the selected clinical questions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.