Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24130286›Full record

Trial reportCanadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien2013

Decision making in family medicine: randomized trial of the effects of the InfoClinique and Trip database search engines.

Michel Labrecque, Stéphane Ratté, Pierre Frémont, Michel Cauchon, Jérôme Ouellet, William Hogg, Jessie McGowan, Marie-Pierre Gagnon, Merlin Njoya, France Légaré

Abstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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.

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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

10 authors.

Michel LabrecqueLaval University, Département de médecine familiale et de médecine d'urgence, Hôpital St-François d'Assise, D6-728, 10 rue de l'Espinay, Quebec city, QC G1L 3L5. michel.labrecque@mfa.ulaval.ca.
Stéphane Ratté
Pierre Frémont
Michel Cauchon
Jérôme Ouellet
William Hogg
Jessie McGowan
Marie-Pierre Gagnon
Merlin Njoya
France Légaré

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo compare the ability of users of 2 medical search engines, InfoClinique and the Trip database, to provide correct answers to clinical questions and to explore the perceived effects of the tools on the clinical decision-making process.

designRandomized trial.

settingThree family medicine units of the family medicine program of the Faculty of Medicine at Laval University in Quebec city, Que.

participantsFifteen second-year family medicine residents.

interventionResidents generated 30 structured questions about therapy or preventive treatment (2 questions per resident) based on clinical encounters. Using an Internet platform designed for the trial, each resident answered 20 of these questions (their own 2, plus 18 of the questions formulated by other residents, selected randomly) before and after searching for information with 1 of the 2 search engines. For each question, 5 residents were randomly assigned to begin their search with InfoClinique and 5 with the Trip database.

main outcome measuresThe ability of residents to provide correct answers to clinical questions using the search engines, as determined by third-party evaluation. After answering each question, participants completed a questionnaire to assess their perception of the engine's effect on the decision-making process in clinical practice.

resultsOf 300 possible pairs of answers (1 answer before and 1 after the initial search), 254 (85%) were produced by 14 residents. Of these, 132 (52%) and 122 (48%) pairs of answers concerned questions that had been assigned an initial search with InfoClinique and the Trip database, respectively. Both engines produced an important and similar absolute increase in the proportion of correct answers after searching (26% to 62% for InfoClinique, for an increase of 36%; 24% to 63% for the Trip database, for an increase of 39%; P = .68). For all 30 clinical questions, at least 1 resident produced the correct answer after searching with either search engine. The mean (SD) time of the initial search for each question was 23.5 (7.6) minutes with InfoClinique and 22.3 (7.8) minutes with the Trip database (P = .30). Participants' perceptions of each engine's effect on the decision-making process were very positive and similar for both search engines.

conclusionFamily medicine residents' ability to provide correct answers to clinical questions increased dramatically and similarly with the use of both InfoClinique and the Trip database. These tools have strong potential to increase the quality of medical care.

Indexed as

Databases, FactualDecision MakingSearch EngineAttitude of Health PersonnelEvidence-Based MedicineFamily PracticeFemaleHumansInternetInternship and ResidencyMaleModels, StatisticalPubMedQuebec

Identifiers

PMID24130286
PMCPMC3796978

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.