ArticleJournal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA2013
Access of primary and secondary literature by health personnel in an academic health center: implications for open access.
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 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Physiotherapists' Use of Web-Based Information Resources to Fulfill Their Information Needs During a Theoretical Examination: Randomized Crossover Trial.Journal of medical Internet research · 2020Trial
- E-health tools in oncology nursing: Perceptions of nurses and contributions to patient care and advanced practice.Canadian oncology nursing journal = Revue canadienne de nursing oncologique · 2018Article
- Article
- Wikipedia as a gateway to biomedical research: The relative distribution and use of citations in the English Wikipedia.PloS one · 2017Article
- Point of care information services: a platform for self-directed continuing medical education for front line decision makers.Postgraduate medical journal · 2015Review
- Characterizing physicians' information needs at the point of care.Perspectives on medical education · 2014Article
- How are medical students trained to locate biomedical information to practice evidence-based medicine? A review of the 2007-2012 literature.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe research sought to ascertain the types and quantity of research evidence accessed by health personnel through PubMed and UpToDate in a university medical center over the course of a year in order to better estimate the impact that increasing levels of open access to biomedical research can be expected to have on clinical practice in the years ahead.
methodsWeb log data were gathered from the 5,042 health personnel working in the Stanford University Hospitals (SUH) during 2011. Data were analyzed for access to the primary literature (abstracts and full-text) through PubMed and UpToDate and to the secondary literature, represented by UpToDate (research summaries), to establish the frequency and nature of literature consulted.
resultsIn 2011, SUH health personnel accessed 81,851 primary literature articles and visited UpToDate 110,336 times. Almost a third of the articles (24,529) accessed were reviews. Twenty percent (16,187) of the articles viewed were published in 2011.
conclusionWhen it is available, health personnel in a clinical care setting frequently access the primary literature. While further studies are needed, this preliminary finding speaks to the value of the National Institutes of Health public access policy and the need for medical librarians and educators to prepare health personnel for increasing public access to medical research.
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.