ArticleJournal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA2026
Resident resource use in clinical settings: an institutional survey.
Article in Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: We explored which point of care (POC) resources medical residents at the University at Buffalo use in clinical settings. We specifically sought to gather feedback from residents who help train medical students to see how they discover, use, and promote resources to support patient care. Case Presentation: We developed an eight question Qualtrics survey. Residency program coordinators emailed the survey to approximately 445 residents in the following programs: Family Medicine, Internal Medicine, Combined Internal Medicine and Pediatrics, Neurology, Child Neurology, Obstetrics and Gynecology, Pediatrics, Psychiatry, Surgery, Plastic Surgery, and Vascular Surgery. The programs we targeted all correspond to required clerkship rotations. The survey was open for two weeks in June 2025. Thirty-nine residents (8.8%) completed our survey. Thirty-five, or nearly 90% of respondents, reported that they frequently use UpToDate, followed by twenty-three (59.0%) that use OpenEvidence, and seventeen that use MDCalc (43.6%). The residents we surveyed were inclined to recommend similar resources to medical students. They most often hear about new resources from other residents and attendings, via announcements on social media or podcasts, or by attending grand rounds and conferences. Conclusions: Our results highlight the continued popularity of UpToDate among medical trainees but also suggest that residents frequently use OpenEvidence in clinical settings. Further studies are needed to determine the impact of artificial intelligence tools on patient care and learning outcomes.
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.