ArticleHealth information and libraries journal2025
Exploring the utility of Preevid, an evidence-based answer service to clinical questions, during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Article in Health information and libraries journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Exploring the utility of Preevid, an evidence-based answer service to clinical questions, during the COVID-19 pandemic.Health information and libraries journal · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundClinical question services offer evidence-based relevant clinical information allowing health professionals to obtain answers in a timely manner.
objectivesTo explore the use and usefulness of Preevid, an evidence-based answering service for clinical questions, among health workers during the COVID-19 pandemic.
methodsThis study analyses the COVID-19-related clinical questions received in the Preevid service between 1 March 2020 and 28 February 2022. Particularly, it examines the topic, the type of professional who raised those questions, the epidemic period in which they were made, and the impact of the questions openly published on the Preevid online bank.
resultsPreevid service received 1111 clinical questions, of which 252 (22.7%) were about COVID-19 and half of these (132) were published on the online bank. The majority of COVID-19-related questions were about prevention (57.5%) and were mainly raised by physicians (57.9%) and nurses (34.1%). The Preevid question bank received 25,865,015 online views and it was mainly visited during the first months of the pandemic. COVID-19-related questions had 5,182,723 online views, of which 55% were originated in Spain.
conclusionsPreevid, the service that gives evidence-based answers to clinical questions, helps health professionals with clinical decision making and clinical practice, also in crisis situations such as a pandemic.
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.