ArticleJAMIA open2020
Characterizing physicians' information needs related to a gap in knowledge unmet by current evidence.
Article in JAMIA open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Benchmark Survey on Content Development and Key Performance Indicators: A phactMI Benchmarking Survey Update.Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science · 2026Article
- Expectation of clinical decision support systems: a survey study among nephrologist end-users.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2023Article
- Facilitators and barriers to latent tuberculosis infection treatment among primary healthcare workers in Malaysia: a qualitative study.BMC health services research · 2023Article
- Electronic Health Records' Support for Primary Care Physicians' Situation Awareness: A Metanarrative Review.Human factors · 2023Review
- Data Consult Service: Can we use observational data to address immediate clinical needs?Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2021Article
- Human Factors and Organizational Issues in Health Informatics: Innovations and Opportunities.Yearbook of medical informatics · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe study sought to explore information needs arising from a gap in clinicians' knowledge that is not met by current evidence and identify possible areas of use and target groups for a future clinical decision support system (CDSS), which will guide clinicians in cases where no evidence exists. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe interviewed 30 physicians in a large academic medical center, analyzed transcripts using deductive thematic analysis, and developed a set of themes of information needs related to a gap in knowledge unmet by current evidence. We conducted additional statistical analyses to identify the correlation between clinical experience, clinical specialty, settings of clinical care, and the characteristics of the needs.
resultsThis study resulted in a set of themes and subthemes of information needs arising from a gap in current evidence. Experienced physicians and inpatient physicians had more questions and the number of questions did not decline with clinical experience. The main areas of information needs included patients with comorbidities, elderly and children, new drugs, and rare disorders. To address these questions, clinicians most often used a commercial tool, guidelines, and PubMed. While primary care physicians preferred the commercial tool, specialty physicians sought more in-depth knowledge. DISCUSSION: The current medical evidence appeared to be inadequate in covering specific populations such as patients with multiple comorbidities and elderly, and was sometimes irrelevant to complex clinical scenarios. Our findings may suggest that experienced and inpatient physicians would benefit from a CDSS that generates evidence in real time at the point of care.
conclusionsWe found that physicians had information needs, which arose from the gaps in current medical evidence. This study provides insights on how the CDSS that aims at addressing these needs should be designed.
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.