Dies ist eine Übersichtsseite mit Metadaten zu dieser wissenschaftlichen Arbeit. Der vollständige Artikel ist beim Verlag verfügbar.
A Web-based Compendium of Clinical Questions and Medical Evidence to Educate Internal Medicine Residents
52
Zitationen
7
Autoren
2003
Jahr
Abstract
The authors designed an electronic database of clinical questions (CQs) and medical evidence and implemented it in 2001-02 at Duke University Medical Center and the Veterans Administration Medical Center in Durham, North Carolina. This Web-based data collection system is called the Critical Appraisal Resource (CAR) and is still in operation. This report is of ten months of the system's operation. During their medicine ward rotations, residents entered CQs into the CAR; they also entered Medline reference links and validated article summaries. Residents' utilization of the CAR database, Medline, and other electronic resources was prospectively measured. In addition, residents were prospectively surveyed regarding the impact of each question and associated reference on medical decision making for individual patients. Over ten months, residents entered 625 patient-based CQs into the CAR and were able to obtain useful information from the medical literature on 82% of the CQs they searched. The two most prevalent CQ types were therapy and diagnosis questions (53% and 22%). Sixty percent of the therapy articles considered useful were reports of randomized controlled trials. Residents obtained 77% of their useful data from Medline. They reported that obtaining useful data altered patient management 47% of the time. Residents used the CAR as a resource, searching the database for information 1,035 times over the study period. In summary, the use of an evidence-based critical appraisal resource led residents to engage the medical literature on behalf of their patients and influenced approximately half of their patient-care decisions. Residents benefited from questions previously searched by other residents, allowing them to address a wider spectrum of CQs during ward rotations.
Ähnliche Arbeiten
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement
2009 · 83.089 Zit.
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement
2009 · 63.587 Zit.
Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses
2003 · 62.236 Zit.
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement.
2009 · 45.128 Zit.
The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration
2009 · 27.785 Zit.