Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19588361›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2009

Electronic retrieval of health information by healthcare providers to improve practice and patient care.

Jessie L McGowan, Roland Grad, Pierre Pluye, Karin Hannes, Katherine Deane, Michel Labrecque, Vivian Welch, Peter Tugwell

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Clinical Information Retrieval: A Literature Review.Journal of healthcare informatics research · 2024
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Jessie L McGowanInstitute of Population Health/Ottawa Health Research Institute, University of Ottawa, 1 Stewart St. room 206, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K1N 6N5.
Roland Grad
Pierre Pluye
Karin Hannes
Katherine Deane
Michel Labrecque
Vivian Welch
Peter Tugwell

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe movement towards evidence-based practice makes explicit the need for access to current best evidence to improve health. Advances in electronic technologies have made health information more available, but does availability affect the rate of use of evidence in practice?

objectivesTo assess the effectiveness of interventions intended to provide electronic retrieval (access to information) to health information by healthcare providers to improve practice and patient care. SEARCH STRATEGY: We obtained studies from computerized searches of multiple electronic bibliographic databases, supplemented by checking reference lists, and consultation with experts. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) including cluster randomized trials (CRCTs), controlled clinical trials (CCT), and interrupted time series analyses (ITS) of any language publication status examining interventions of effectiveness of electronic retrieval of health information by healthcare providers. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Duplicate relevancy screening of searches, data abstraction and risk of bias assessment was undertaken. MAIN

resultsWe found two studies that examined this question. Neither study found any changes in professional behavior following an intervention that facilitated electronic retrieval of health information. There was some evidence of improvements in knowledge about the electronic sources of information reported in one study. Neither study assessed changes in patient outcomes or the costs of provision of the electronic resource and the implementation of the recommended evidence-based practices. AUTHORS'

conclusionsOverall there was insufficient evidence to support or refute the use of electronic retrieval of healthcare information by healthcare providers to improve practice and patient care.

Indexed as

Databases, BibliographicEvidence-Based MedicineHealth PersonnelHumansInformation Storage and RetrievalPatient CareProfessional PracticeRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Identifiers

PMID19588361
PMCPMC4164913

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.