ArticleJournal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA2022
A comparative evaluation of three point-of-care tools by registered nurses.
Article in Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA, 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.
- 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
- Focus on nursing point-of-care tools: application of a new evaluation rubric.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study compared three point-of-care tools (PoCTs) to determine which PoCT was rated highest based on key features and characteristics by registered nurses. Methods: The PoCTs reviewed were Nursing Reference Center Plus, ClinicalKey for Nursing, and UpToDate. Nurses were asked to use each PoCT to answer three clinical questions and then rate their experience based on the following areas: currency, relevancy, layout, navigation, labeling, and use of filters. They were also asked to indicate their familiarity with each PoCT, their overall opinions, and demographic information. Results: Seventy-six nurses completed the entire survey. Ratings of PoCTs did not differ by participant characteristics. Participants were most familiar with UpToDate, and average ratings were similar across all three PoCTs. Answers to open-ended questions suggested that nurses' experiences searching and locating relevant information to address clinical questions varied and that brand recognition might have impacted preference. Discussion: None of the PoCTs was significantly preferred over the others, nor received high ratings, which suggests that organizations need to survey their nurses to determine which PoCT is preferred by their staff. Findings also suggest that institutional priorities can guide the decision whether a library should license multiple PoCTs, nursing, and/or non-nursing specific PoCTs. Research is needed to understand how PoCTs could better meet the information needs of registered nurses. Librarians should learn more about what types of information nurses are seeking and explore opportunities to educate nurses on how to better utilize PoCTs for their practice.
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.