ArticleJournal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA2013
A comparison of clinicians' access to online knowledge resources using two types of information retrieval applications in an academic hospital setting.
Article in Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Context-sensitive decision support (infobuttons) in electronic health records: a systematic review.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2017Pooled it
- Examining the role of MEDLINE as a patient care information resource: an analysis of data from the Value of Libraries study.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2017Article
- Information needs of generalists and specialists using online best-practice algorithms to answer clinical questions.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2017Article
- Practical choices for infobutton customization: experience from four sites.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe research studied whether a clinician's preference for online health knowledge resources varied with the use of two applications that were designed for information retrieval in an academic hospital setting.
methodsThe researchers analyzed a year's worth of computer log files to study differences in the ways that four clinician groups (attending physicians, housestaff physicians, nurse practitioners, and nurses) sought information using two types of information retrieval applications (health resource links or Infobutton icons) across nine resources while they reviewed patients' laboratory results.
resultsFrom a set of 14,979 observations, the authors found statistically significant differences among the 4 clinician groups for accessing resources using the health resources application (P<0.001) but not for the Infobuttons application (P = 0.31). For the health resources application, the preferences of the 4 clinical groups varied according to the specific resources examined (all P≤0.02).
conclusionThe information-seeking behavior of clinicians may vary in relation to their role and the way in which the information is presented. Studying these behaviors can provide valuable insights to those tasked with maintaining information retrieval systems' links to appropriate online knowledge resources.
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.