ArticleJournal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA2011
Developing and using a rubric for evaluating evidence-based medicine point-of-care tools.
Article in Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 31 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparing the Use of DynaMed and UpToDate by Physician Trainees in Clinical Decision-Making: A Randomized Crossover Trial.Applied clinical informatics · 2022Trial
- Focus on nursing point-of-care tools: application of a new evaluation rubric.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2022Article
- A conceptual model for practice-based learning and improvement competency in medicine.Journal of family medicine and primary care · 2022Article
- On the job training in the dissection room: from physical therapy graduates to junior anatomy instructors.BMC medical education · 2022Article
- Students as anatomy near-peer teachers: a double-edged sword for an ancient skill.BMC medical education · 2017Article
- Breadth of Coverage, Ease of Use, and Quality of Mobile Point-of-Care Tool Information Summaries: An Evaluation.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2016Article
- Providing Doctors With High-Quality Information: An Updated Evaluation of Web-Based Point-of-Care Information Summaries.Journal of medical Internet research · 2016Review
- EBMPracticeNet: A Bilingual National Electronic Point-Of-Care Project for Retrieval of Evidence-Based Clinical Guideline Information and Decision Support.JMIR research protocols · 2013Article
- Making the Critical Appraisal for Summaries of Evidence (CASE) for evidence-based medicine (EBM): critical appraisal of summaries of evidence.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2013Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe research sought to establish a rubric for evaluating evidence-based medicine (EBM) point-of-care tools in a health sciences library.
methodsThe authors searched the literature for EBM tool evaluations and found that most previous reviews were designed to evaluate the ability of an EBM tool to answer a clinical question. The researchers' goal was to develop and complete rubrics for assessing these tools based on criteria for a general evaluation of tools (reviewing content, search options, quality control, and grading) and criteria for an evaluation of clinical summaries (searching tools for treatments of common diagnoses and evaluating summaries for quality control).
resultsDifferences between EBM tools' options, content coverage, and usability were minimal. However, the products' methods for locating and grading evidence varied widely in transparency and process.
conclusionsAs EBM tools are constantly updating and evolving, evaluation of these tools needs to be conducted frequently. Standards for evaluating EBM tools need to be established, with one method being the use of objective rubrics. In addition, EBM tools need to provide more information about authorship, reviewers, methods for evidence collection, and grading system employed.
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.