ArticlePloS one2022
Clinical questions in primary care: Where to find the answers - a cross-sectional study.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- How useful is ChatGPT in answering point-of-care questions in primary care?Einstein (Sao Paulo, Brazil) · 2025Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionClinicians raise at least one question for every two patients they see, but search for an answer to less than half of these questions, and rarely use evidence-based resources. One barrier to evidence-based practice is doubt that the search would yield an answer, and we found insufficient evidence to refute this concern. This study aims to identify what proportion of clinical questions in primary care can be answered with online evidence-based practice resources, and what proportion of these can be answered with pre-appraised evidence. MATERIALS AND
methodsCross-sectional study in two primary care practices. The inclusion criteria were family doctors, generalists and residents working in 2 selected practices. We collected a total of 238 questions from 19 family medicine specialists, 9 family medicine residents and 3 generalist doctors. Doctors were asked to record any clinical question that arose during 4 days of appointments. The primary outcome was the proportion of clinical questions answered with online evidence-based practice resources. The secondary outcome was the level of evidence needed to reach to find the answers (clinical summaries, systematic guidelines, systematic reviews or primary studies), according to Haynes' pre-appraised evidence pyramid model.
results191 of the 206 valid clinical questions could be answered with online evidence-based practice resources (92.7% [95% CI 88.3%-95.9%]). Most of these questions (90.8% CI 95% 85.9%-94.4%) were successfully answered using clinical summaries (BMJ Best Practice, DynaMed or UpToDate), with a median search time of 4 minutes (range 1-16.5).
conclusionsContrary to clinician's beliefs, the majority of clinical questions can be answered with online evidence-based practice resources, and most of them with pre-appraised evidence. This study could encourage family doctors to increase the use of clinical summaries. Furthermore, these results highlight the importance of teaching how to search for and apply pre-appraised evidence.
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.