Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24786378›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2014

An iterative evaluation of two shortened systematic review formats for clinicians: a focus group study.

Laure Perrier, M Ryan Kealey, Sharon E Straus

Registry-linked trialAbstract readEvaluation Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2014. 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, 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.

NCT02414360 nacompletednot on this map

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 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

3 authors.

Laure PerrierLi Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada Continuing Education and Professional Development, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
M Ryan KealeyFaculty of Applied Science and Engineering, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Sharon E StrausFaculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada Keenan Research Centre, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Funding

Canadian Institutes of Health Research 487776
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo conduct a series of focus groups with primary care physicians to determine the optimal format of a shortened, focused systematic review. MATERIALS AND

methodsPrototypes for two formats of a shortened systematic review were developed and presented to participants during focus group sessions. Focus groups were conducted with primary care physicians who were in full- or part-time practice. An iterative process was used so that the information learned from the first set of focus groups (Round 1) influenced the material presented to the second set of focus groups (Round 2). The focus group discussions were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed.

resultsEach of the two rounds of testing included three focus groups. A total of 32 physicians participated (Round 1:16 participants; Round 2:16 participants). Analysis of the transcripts from Round 1 identified three themes including ease of use, clarity, and implementation. Changes were made to the prototypes based on the results so that the revised prototypes could be presented and discussed in the second round of focus groups. After analysis of transcripts from Round 2, four themes were identified, including ease of use, clarity, brevity, and implementation. Revisions were made to the prototypes based on the results.

conclusionsPrimary care physicians provided input on the refinement of two prototypes of a shortened systematic review for clinicians. Their feedback guided changes to the format, presentation, and layout of these prototypes in order to increase usability and uptake for end-users.

Indexed as

Physicians, Primary CareSystematic Reviews as TopicFocus Groupsevidence-based practicefocus groupsqualitative researchreview literature as topic

Identifiers

PMID24786378
PMCPMC4173187

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.