Dataset Information

Speed of updating online evidence based point of care summaries: prospective cohort analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To evaluate the ability of international point of care information summaries to update evidence relevant to medical practice.

Design

Prospective cohort bibliometric analysis.

Setting

Top five point of care information summaries (Clinical Evidence, EBMGuidelines, eMedicine, Dynamed, UpToDate) ranked for coverage of medical conditions, editorial quality, and evidence based methodology.

Main outcome measures

From June 2009 to May 2010 we measured the incidence of research findings relating to potentially eligible newsworthy evidence. As samples, we chose systematic reviews rated as relevant by international research networks (such as, Evidence-Based Medicine, ACP Journal Club, and the Cochrane Collaboration). Every month we assessed whether each sampled review was cited in at least one chapter of the five summaries. The cumulative updating rate was analysed with Kaplan-Meier curves. Results From April to December 2009, 128 reviews were retrieved; 53% (68) from the literature surveillance journals and 47% (60) from the Cochrane Library. At nine months, Dynamed had cited 87% of the sampled reviews, while the other summaries had cited less than 50%. The updating speed of Dynamed clearly led the others. For instance, the hazard ratios for citations in EBM Guidelines and Clinical Evidence versus the top performer were 0.22 (95% confidence interval 0.17 to 0.29) and 0.03 (0.01 to 0.05). Conclusions Point of care information summaries include evidence relevant to practice at different speeds. A qualitative analysis of updating mechanisms is needed to determine whether greater speed corresponds to more appropriate incorporation of new information.

SUBMITTER: Banzi R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3179203 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionComa is a deep state of unconsciousness that can be caused by a variety of clinical conditions. Traditional tests for coma outcome prediction are based mainly on a set of clinical observations. Recently, certain event-related potentials (ERPs), which are transient electroencephalogram (EEG) responses to auditory, visual or tactile stimuli, have been introduced as useful predictors of a positive coma outcome (ie, emergence). However, such tests require the skills of clinical neurophysiologists, who are not commonly available in many clinical settings. Additionally, none of the current standard clinical approaches have sufficient predictive accuracies to provide definitive prognoses.ObjectiveThe objective of this study is to develop improved machine learning procedures based on EEG/ERP for determining emergence from coma.Methods and analysisData will be collected from 50 participants in coma. EEG/ERP data will be recorded for 24 consecutive hours at a maximum of five time points spanning 30 days from the date of recruitment to track participants' progression. The study employs paradigms designed to elicit brainstem potentials, middle-latency responses, N100, mismatch negativity, P300 and N400. In the case of patient emergence, data are recorded on that occasion to form an additional basis for comparison. A relevant data set will be developed from the testing of 20 healthy controls, each spanning a 15-hour recording period in order to formulate a baseline. Collected data will be used to develop an automated procedure for analysis and detection of various ERP components that are salient to prognosis. Salient features extracted from the ERP and resting-state EEG will be identified and combined to give an accurate indicator of prognosis.Ethics and disseminationThis study is approved by the Hamilton Integrated Research Ethics Board (project number 4840). Results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journal articles and presentations at scientific conferences.Trial registration numberNCT03826407.

Project description:BACKGROUND:User-friendly information at the point of care should be well structured, rapidly accessible, and comprehensive. Also, this information should be trustworthy, as it will be used by health care practitioners to practice evidence-based medicine. Therefore, a standard, validated tool to evaluate the trustworthiness of such point-of-care information resources is needed. OBJECTIVE:This systematic review sought to search for tools to assess the trustworthiness of point-of-care resources and to describe and analyze the content of these tools. METHODS:A systematic search was performed on three sources: (1) we searched online for initiatives that worked off of the trustworthiness of medical information; (2) we searched Medline (PubMed) until June 2019 for relevant literature; and (3) we scanned reference lists and lists of citing papers via Web of Science for each retrieved paper. We included all studies, reports, websites, or methodologies that reported on tools that assessed the trustworthiness of medical information for professionals. From the selected studies, we extracted information on the general characteristics of the tools. As no standard, risk-of-bias assessment instruments are available for these types of studies, we described how each tool was developed, including any assessments on reliability and validity. We analyzed the criteria used in the different tools and divided them into five categories: (1) author-related information; (2) evidence-based methodology; (3) website quality; (4) website design and usability; and (5) website interactivity. The percentage of tools in compliance with these categories and the different criteria were calculated. RESULTS:Included in this review was a total of 17 tools, all published between 1997 and 2018. The tools were developed for different purposes, from a general quality assessment of medical information to very detailed analyses, all specifically for point-of-care resources. However, the development process of the tools was poorly described. Overall, seven tools had a scoring system implemented, two were assessed for reliability only, and two other tools were assessed for both validity and reliability. The content analysis showed that all the tools assessed criteria related to an evidence-based methodology: 82% of the tools assessed author-related information, 71% assessed criteria related to website quality, 71% assessed criteria related to website design and usability, and 47% of the tools assessed criteria related to website interactivity. There was significant variability in criteria used, as some were very detailed while others were more broadly defined. CONCLUSIONS:The 17 included tools encompass a variety of items important for the assessment of the trustworthiness of point-of-care information. Overall, two tools were assessed for both reliability and validity, but they lacked some essential criteria for the assessment of the trustworthiness of medical information for use at the point-of-care. Currently, a standard, validated tool does not exist. The results of this review may contribute to the development of such an instrument, which may enhance the quality of point-of-care information in the long term. TRIAL REGISTRATION:PROSPERO CRD42019122565; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=122565.