ReviewJournal of medical Internet research2016
Providing Doctors With High-Quality Information: An Updated Evaluation of Web-Based Point-of-Care Information Summaries.
Review in Journal of medical Internet research, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
33 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Effectiveness of educational interventions for improving healthcare professionals' information literacy: A systematic review.Health information and libraries journal · 2025Pooled it
- Tools to Assess the Trustworthiness of Evidence-Based Point-of-Care Information for Health Care Professionals: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2020Pooled it
- Comparing the Use of DynaMed and UpToDate by Physician Trainees in Clinical Decision-Making: A Randomized Crossover Trial.Applied clinical informatics · 2022Trial
- Effect of an E-Learning Module on Personal Protective Equipment Proficiency Among Prehospital Personnel: Web-Based Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of medical Internet research · 2020Trial
- A clinical decision support system improves antibiotic therapy for upper urinary tract infection in a randomized single-blinded study.BMC health services research · 2020Trial
- Effectiveness of a Hospital-Based Computerized Decision Support System on Clinician Recommendations and Patient Outcomes: A Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA network open · 2019Trial
- Multilayered and digitally structured presentation formats of trustworthy recommendations: a combined survey and randomised trial.BMJ open · 2017Trial
- Digital clinical decision support to save costs: a qualitative evaluation of the views of frontline healthcare professionals.Proceedings (Baylor University. Medical Center) · 2026Article
- Perceptions of resident doctors on how digital clinical decision support influences decisions on use of resources.The Ulster medical journal · 2026Article
- Adoption of an Electronic Decision Support Tool for Capacity Building of Community Health Workers: Mixed Methods Study.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- Addressing health information inequities: making evidence-based clinical content more accessible in low- and middle-income primary care.BMJ global health · 2025Article
- Genie in the bottle? a qualitative study of general practitioners' perspectives and information needs concerning digital mental health applications in Germany.BMC primary care · 2025Article
- Article
- Hospitalisations in Brazil: an ecological time series analysis of the impact of medical decision support data as an exogenous variable.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Clinician Attitudes and Perceptions of Point-of-Care Information Resources and Their Integration Into Electronic Health Records: Qualitative Interview Study.JMIR medical informatics · 2025Article
- Digital clinical decision support to improve care and to save costs: a pilot survey of the views of frontline healthcare professionals.Proceedings (Baylor University. Medical Center) · 2025Article
- Early prediction of colorectal adenoma risk: leveraging large-language model for clinical electronic medical record data.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- Straight to the point: evaluation of a Point of Care Information (POCI) resource in answering disease-related questions.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2024Article
- Performance of a Web-Based Reference Database With Natural Language Searching Capabilities: Usability Evaluation of DynaMed and Micromedex With Watson.JMIR human factors · 2023Article
- Smartphone and Mobile App Use Among Physicians in Clinical Practice: Scoping Review.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2023Article
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
backgroundThe complexity of modern practice requires health professionals to be active information-seekers.
objectiveOur aim was to review the quality and progress of point-of-care information summaries-Web-based medical compendia that are specifically designed to deliver pre-digested, rapidly accessible, comprehensive, and periodically updated information to health care providers. We aimed to evaluate product claims of being evidence-based.
methodsWe updated our previous evaluations by searching Medline, Google, librarian association websites, and conference proceedings from August 2012 to December 2014. We included Web-based, regularly updated point-of-care information summaries with claims of being evidence-based. We extracted data on the general characteristics and content presentation of products, and we quantitatively assessed their breadth of disease coverage, editorial quality, and evidence-based methodology. We assessed potential relationships between these dimensions and compared them with our 2008 assessment.
resultsWe screened 58 products; 26 met our inclusion criteria. Nearly a quarter (6/26, 23%) were newly identified in 2014. We accessed and analyzed 23 products for content presentation and quantitative dimensions. Most summaries were developed by major publishers in the United States and the United Kingdom; no products derived from low- and middle-income countries. The main target audience remained physicians, although nurses and physiotherapists were increasingly represented. Best Practice, Dynamed, and UptoDate scored the highest across all dimensions. The majority of products did not excel across all dimensions: we found only a moderate positive correlation between editorial quality and evidence-based methodology (r=.41, P=.0496). However, all dimensions improved from 2008: editorial quality (P=.01), evidence-based methodology (P=.015), and volume of diseases and medical conditions (P<.001).
conclusionsMedical and scientific publishers are investing substantial resources towards the development and maintenance of point-of-care summaries. The number of these products has increased since 2008 along with their quality. Best Practice, Dynamed, and UptoDate scored the highest across all dimensions, while others that were marketed as evidence-based were less reliable. Individuals and institutions should regularly assess the value of point-of-care summaries as their quality changes rapidly over time.
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.