Providing Doctors With High-Quality Information: An Updated Evaluation of Web-Based Point-of-Care Information Summaries
Providing Doctors With High-Quality Information: An Updated Evaluation of Web-Based Point-of-Care Information Summaries
复制标题
DOI：
10.2196/jmir.5234
复制
发表时间：
2016-01-01
影响因子：
7.4
通讯作者：
Moja, Lorenzo
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Kwag, Koren Hyogene;Gonzalez-Lorenzo, Marien;Moja, Lorenzo
背景：现代实践的复杂性要求卫生专业人员成为积极的信息寻求者。目的：我们的目标是审查基于Web的医疗概要的质量和进展，这些概要专门设计用于向卫生保健提供者提供预先消化的、快速访问的、全面的和定期更新的信息。我们的目标是评估基于证据的产品声明。方法：我们通过搜索Medline、Google、图书馆员协会网站和2012年8月至2014年12月的会议记录来更新之前的评估。我们收录了基于网络的、定期更新的护理信息摘要，并声称这是基于证据的。我们提取了产品的一般特征和内容呈现的数据，并对其疾病覆盖范围、编辑质量和循证方法论进行了定量评估。我们评估了这些维度之间的潜在关系，并将它们与我们2008年的评估进行了比较。结果：我们筛选了58种产品，其中26种符合我们的纳入标准。近四分之一(6/26，23%)是在2014年新发现的。我们访问并分析了23个产品的内容呈现和量化维度。大多数摘要是由美国和联合王国的主要出版商编写的；没有来自低收入和中等收入国家的产品。主要目标受众仍然是医生，尽管护士和理疗师的代表越来越多。最佳实践、DyaMed和UpToDate在所有维度中得分最高。大多数产品并不是在所有方面都表现出色：我们发现编辑质量与循证方法之间只有适度的正相关(r=.41，P=.0496)。然而，与2008年相比，所有维度都有所改善：编辑质量(P=.01)、循证方法(P=.015)、疾病数量和医疗条件(P=.
Background: The complexity of modern practice requires health professionals to be active information-seekers.Objective: Our aim was to review the quality and progress of point-of-care information summaries-Web-based medical compendia that are specifically designed to deliver pre-digested, rapidly accessible, comprehensive, and periodically updated information to health care providers. We aimed to evaluate product claims of being evidence-based.Methods: We updated our previous evaluations by searching Medline, Google, librarian association websites, and conference proceedings from August 2012 to December 2014. We included Web-based, regularly updated point-of-care information summaries with claims of being evidence-based. We extracted data on the general characteristics and content presentation of products, and we quantitatively assessed their breadth of disease coverage, editorial quality, and evidence-based methodology. We assessed potential relationships between these dimensions and compared them with our 2008 assessment.Results: We screened 58 products; 26 met our inclusion criteria. Nearly a quarter (6/26, 23%) were newly identified in 2014. We accessed and analyzed 23 products for content presentation and quantitative dimensions. Most summaries were developed by major publishers in the United States and the United Kingdom; no products derived from low-and middle-income countries. The main target audience remained physicians, although nurses and physiotherapists were increasingly represented. Best Practice, Dynamed, and UptoDate scored the highest across all dimensions. The majority of products did not excel across all dimensions: we found only a moderate positive correlation between editorial quality and evidence-based methodology (r=.41, P=.0496). However, all dimensions improved from 2008: editorial quality (P=.01), evidence-based methodology (P=.015), and volume of diseases and medical conditions (P