ArticleClinical and experimental medicine2008
Rapid access to information resources in clinical biochemistry: medical applications of Personal Digital Assistants (PDA).
Article in Clinical and experimental medicine, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A systematic review of healthcare applications for smartphones.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2012Pooled it
- Knowledge, attitude and practice of evidence-based medicine among primary care practitioners in Malaysia: a cross-sectional study.BMJ open · 2021Article
- Smartphones in clinical practice: doctors' experience at two Dublin paediatric teaching hospitals.Irish journal of medical science · 2018Article
- Mobile technologies and geographic information systems to improve health care systems: a literature review.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2014Review
- Developing and using a rubric for evaluating evidence-based medicine point-of-care tools.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Laboratory specialists currently need to access scientific-based information at anytime and anywhere. A considerable period of time and too much effort are required to access this information through existing accumulated data. Personal digital assistants (PDA) are supposed to provide an effective solution with commercial software for this problem. In this study, 11 commercial software products (UpToDate, ePocrates, Inforetrive, Pepid, eMedicine, FIRST Consult, and 5 laboratory e-books released by Skyscape and/or Isilo) were selected and the benefits of their use were evaluated by seven laboratory specialists. The assessment of the software was performed based on the number of the tests included, the software content of detailed information for each test-like process, method, interpretation of results, reference ranges, critical values, interferences, equations, pathophysiology, supplementary technical details such as sample collection principles, and additional information such as linked references, evidence-based data, test cost, etc. In terms of technique, the following items are considered: the amount of memory required to run the software, the graphical user interface, which is a user-friendly instrument, and the frequency of new and/or up-date releases. There is still no perfect program, as we have anticipated. Interpretation of laboratory results may require software with an integrated program. However, methodological data are mostly not included in the software evaluated. It seems that these shortcomings will be fixed in the near future, and PDAs and relevant medical applications will also become indispensable for all physicians including laboratory specialists in the field of training/education and in patient care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
18618222What 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.