Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24218380›Full record

ArticleAnnals of family medicine

Number needed to benefit from information (NNBI): proposal from a mixed methods research study with practicing family physicians.

Pierre Pluye, Roland M Grad, Janique Johnson-Lafleur, Vera Granikov, Michael Shulha, Bernard Marlow, Ivan Luiz Marques Ricarte

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of family medicine. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. A New Informatics Geography.Yearbook of medical informatics · 2016
    Article
  6. Article
  7. iPad use in Iowa Research Network family physician offices.Journal of primary care & community health · 2015
    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.

Pierre PluyeDepartment of Family Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Roland M Grad
Janique Johnson-Lafleur
Vera Granikov
Michael Shulha
Bernard Marlow
Ivan Luiz Marques Ricarte

Funding

Canadian Institutes of Health Research 200609MSH-166957-HAS-CFAA-109294Canadian Institutes of Health Research 200610KAL-167781-KAL-CFAF536Canadian Institutes of Health Research 200703MOP-173703-KTE-CFAF53066
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeWe wanted to describe family physicians' use of information from an electronic knowledge resource for answering clinical questions, and their perception of subsequent patient health outcomes; and to estimate the number needed to benefit from information (NNBI), defined as the number of patients for whom clinical information was retrieved for 1 to benefit.

methodsWe undertook a mixed methods research study, combining quantitative longitudinal and qualitative research studies. Participants were 41 family physicians from primary care clinics across Canada. Physicians were given access to 1 electronic knowledge resource on handheld computer in 2008-2009. For the outcome assessment, participants rated their searches using a validated method. Rated searches were examined during interviews guided by log reports that included ratings. Cases were defined as clearly described searches where clinical information was used for a specific patient. For each case, interviewees described information-related patient health outcomes. For the mixed methods data analysis, quantitative and qualitative data were merged into clinical vignettes (each vignette describing a case). We then estimated the NNBI.

resultsIn 715 of 1,193 searches for information conducted during an average of 86 days, the search objective was directly linked to a patient. Of those searches, 188 were considered to be cases. In 53 cases, participants associated the use of information with at least 1 patient health benefit. This finding suggested an NNBI of 14 (715/53).

conclusionThe NNBI may be used in further experimental research to compare electronic knowledge resources. A low NNBI can encourage clinicians to search for information more frequently. If all searches had benefits, the NNBI would be 1. In addition to patient benefits, learning and knowledge reinforcement outcomes are frequently reported.

Indexed as

Health Information ManagementOutcome Assessment, Health CareAdultAgedCanadaFamily PracticeFemaleHumansInformation Storage and RetrievalLongitudinal StudiesMaleMiddle AgedNumbers Needed To TreatQualitative ResearchSurveys and Questionnaireselectronic knowledge resourcesfamily physiciansinformation assessment methodinformation managementinformation storage and retrievalmixed methods researchnumber needed to benefit from informationpatient-centered carepatient health outcomes

Identifiers

PMID24218380
PMCPMC3823727

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.