Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28790039›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2017

Answering medical questions at the point of care: a cross-sectional study comparing rapid decisions based on PubMed and Epistemonikos searches with evidence-based recommendations developed with the GRADE approach.

Ariel Izcovich, Juan Martín Criniti, Federico Popoff, Martín Alberto Ragusa, Cristel Gigler, Carlos Gonzalez Malla, Manuela Clavijo, Matias Manzotti, Martín Diaz, Hugo Norberto Catalano and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2017. 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

12 authors.

Ariel IzcovichDepartment of Internal Medicine, Hospital Alemán, Buenos Aires, Argentina.ORCID 0000-0001-9053-4396
Juan Martín CrinitiDepartment of Internal Medicine, Hospital Alemán, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Federico PopoffDepartment of Internal Medicine, Hospital Alemán, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Martín Alberto RagusaDepartment of Internal Medicine, Hospital Alemán, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Cristel GiglerDepartment of Internal Medicine, Hospital Alemán, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Carlos Gonzalez MallaDepartment of Internal Medicine, Hospital Alemán, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Manuela ClavijoDepartment of Internal Medicine, Hospital Alemán, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Matias ManzottiDepartment of Internal Medicine, Hospital Alemán, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Martín DiazDepartment of Internal Medicine, Hospital Alemán, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Hugo Norberto CatalanoDepartment of Internal Medicine, Hospital Alemán, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Ignacio NeumannDepartment of Internal Medicine, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile.
Gordon GuyattDepartment of Evidence and Impact, Health Research Methods,McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionUsing the best current evidence to inform clinical decisions remains a challenge for clinicians. Given the scarcity of trustworthy clinical practice guidelines providing recommendations to answer clinicians' daily questions, clinical decision support systems (ie, assistance in question identification and answering) emerge as an attractive alternative. The trustworthiness of the recommendations achieved by such systems is unknown.

objectiveTo evaluate the trustworthiness of a question identification and answering system that delivers timely recommendations.

designCross-sectional study.

methodsWe compared the responses to 100 clinical questions related to inpatient management provided by two rapid response methods with 'Gold Standard' recommendations. One of the rapid methods was based on PubMed and the other on Epistemonikos database. We defined our 'Gold Standard' as trustworthy published evidence-based recommendations or, when unavailable, recommendations developed locally by a panel of six clinicians following the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Recommendations provided by the rapid strategies were classified as potentially misleading or reasonable. We also determined if the potentially misleading recommendations could have been avoided with the appropriate implementation of searching and evidence summary tools.

resultsWe were able to answer all of the 100 questions with both rapid methods. Of the 200 recommendations obtained, 6.5% (95% CI 3% to 9.9%) were classified as potentially misleading and 93.5% (95% CI 90% to 96.9%) as reasonable. 6 of the 13 potentially misleading recommendations could have been avoided by the appropriate usage of the Epistemonikos matrix tool or by constructing summary of findings tables. No significant differences were observed between the evaluated rapid response methods.

conclusionA question answering service based on the GRADE approach proved feasible to implement and provided appropriate guidance for most identified questions. Our approach could help stakeholders in charge of managing resources and defining policies for patient care to improve evidence-based decision-making in an efficient and feasible manner.

Indexed as

Clinical Decision-MakingCross-Sectional StudiesDecision Support Systems, ClinicalEvidence-Based MedicineHumansInformation Storage and RetrievalPoint-of-Care SystemsPractice Guidelines as TopicPubMedQualitative Researchdecision supportevidence based practiceinformationist

Identifiers

PMID28790039
PMCPMC5629721

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.