Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23767771›Full record

ArticleImplementation science : IS2013

Development of two shortened systematic review formats for clinicians.

Laure Perrier, Nav Persaud, Anita Ko, Monika Kastner, Jeremy Grimshaw, K Ann McKibbon, Sharon E Straus

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Implementation science : IS, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02414360 (Using a Systematic Review in Clinical Decision Making), which is not on this map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–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.

NCT02414360 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2014, after this paper: background citation

Using a Systematic Review in Clinical Decision Making: a Pilot Parallel, Randomized Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of TorontoRan2014 to 2014Enrolled56ConditionsEvidence-Based MedicineArmsShortened Format, Full Length
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. An iterative evaluation of two shortened systematic review formats for clinicians: a focus group study.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2014
    Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Laure PerrierLi Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St Michael's Hospital, 30 Bond Street, Toronto, ON M5B 1W8, Canada. l.perrier@utoronto.ca
Nav Persaud
Anita Ko
Monika Kastner
Jeremy Grimshaw
K Ann McKibbon
Sharon E Straus

Funding

Canadian Institutes of Health Research
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSystematic reviews provide evidence for clinical questions, however the literature suggests they are not used regularly by physicians for decision-making. A shortened systematic review format is proposed as one possible solution to address barriers, such as lack of time, experienced by busy clinicians. The purpose of this paper is to describe the development process of two shortened formats for a systematic review intended for use by primary care physicians as an information tool for clinical decision-making.

methodsWe developed prototypes for two formats (case-based and evidence-expertise) that represent a summary of a full-length systematic review before seeking input from end-users. The process was composed of the following four phases: 1) selection of a systematic review and creation of initial prototypes that represent a shortened version of the systematic review; 2) a mapping exercise to identify obstacles described by clinicians in using clinical evidence in decision-making; 3) a heuristic evaluation (a usability inspection method); and 4) a review of the clinical content in the prototypes.

resultsAfter the initial prototypes were created (Phase 1), the mapping exercise (Phase 2) identified components that prompted modifications. Similarly, the heuristic evaluation and the clinical content review (Phase 3 and Phase 4) uncovered necessary changes. Revisions were made to the prototypes based on the results.

conclusionsDocumentation of the processes for developing products or tools provides essential information about how they are tailored for the intended user. One step has been described that we hope will increase usability and uptake of these documents to end-users.

Indexed as

Clinical MedicineDecision MakingSystematic Reviews as TopicEvidence-Based MedicineHumansMedical InformaticsPrimary Health Care

Identifiers

PMID23767771
PMCPMC3691647

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.