Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38911524›Full record

ArticleJournal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA2024

Straight to the point: evaluation of a Point of Care Information (POCI) resource in answering disease-related questions.

Rachel L Wasserman, Diane L Seger, Mary G Amato, Zoe Co, Aqsa Mugal, Angela Rui, Pamela M Garabedian, Marlika Marceau, Ania Syrowatka, Lynn A Volk and 1 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

11 authors.

Rachel L Wassermanrwasserman@bwh.haravrd.edu, Division of General Internal Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA and Massachusetts College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences (MCPHS), Boston, MA.
Diane L Segerdseger@mgb.org, Clinical and Quality Analysis, Mass General Brigham, Somerville, MA.
Mary G Amatomamato1@bwh.harvard.edu, Division of General Internal Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA.
Zoe Cozco@bwh.harvard.edu, Division of General Internal Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA.
Aqsa Mugalamugal@mgb.org, Clinical and Quality Analysis, Mass General Brigham, Somerville, MA.
Angela Ruiarui@mgb.org, Division of General Internal Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA.
Pamela M Garabedianpmgarabedian@partners.org, Clinical and Quality Analysis, Mass General Brigham, Somerville, MA.
Marlika Marceaummarceau@mgb.org, Clinical and Quality Analysis, Mass General Brigham, Somerville, MA.
Ania Syrowatkaasyrowatka@bwh.harvard.edu, Division of General Internal Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
Lynn A Volklavolk@partners.org, Clinical and Quality Analysis, Mass General Brigham, Somerville, MA.
David W Batesdbates@bwh.harvard.edu, Division of General Internal Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, Clinical and Quality Analysis, Mass General Brigham, Somerville, MA and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the ability of DynaMedex, an evidence-based drug and disease Point of Care Information (POCI) resource, in answering clinical queries using keyword searches. Methods: Real-world disease-related questions compiled from clinicians at an academic medical center, DynaMedex search query data, and medical board review resources were categorized into five clinical categories (complications & prognosis, diagnosis & clinical presentation, epidemiology, prevention & screening/monitoring, and treatment) and six specialties (cardiology, endocrinology, hematology-oncology, infectious disease, internal medicine, and neurology). A total of 265 disease-related questions were evaluated by pharmacist reviewers based on if an answer was found (yes, no), whether the answer was relevant (yes, no), difficulty in finding the answer (easy, not easy), cited best evidence available (yes, no), clinical practice guidelines included (yes, no), and level of detail provided (detailed, limited details). Results: An answer was found for 259/265 questions (98%). Both reviewers found an answer for 241 questions (91%), neither found the answer for 6 questions (2%), and only one reviewer found an answer for 18 questions (7%). Both reviewers found a relevant answer 97% of the time when an answer was found. Of all relevant answers found, 68% were easy to find, 97% cited best quality of evidence available, 72% included clinical guidelines, and 95% were detailed. Recommendations for areas of resource improvement were identified. Conclusions: The resource enabled reviewers to answer most questions easily with the best quality of evidence available, providing detailed answers and clinical guidelines, with a high level of replication of results across users.

Indexed as

Point-of-Care SystemsEvidence-Based MedicineHumansClinical Decision Support SystemsEvidence-based informationInformation Retrievalpoint of care resources

Identifiers

PMID38911524
PMCPMC11189136

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.