38
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Increasing the quantity and quality of searching for current best evidence to answer clinical questions: protocol and intervention design of the MacPLUS FS Factorial Randomized Controlled Trials

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background & aims

          Finding current best evidence for clinical decisions remains challenging. With 3,000 new studies published every day, no single evidence-based resource provides all answers or is sufficiently updated. McMaster Premium LiteratUre Service – Federated Search (MacPLUS FS) addresses this issue by looking in multiple high quality resources simultaneously and displaying results in a one-page pyramid with the most clinically useful at the top. Yet, additional logistical and educational barriers need to be addressed to enhance point-of-care evidence retrieval. This trial seeks to test three innovative interventions, among clinicians registered to MacPLUS FS, to increase the quantity and quality of searching for current best evidence to answer clinical questions.

          Methods & design

          In a user-centered approach, we designed three interventions embedded in MacPLUS FS: (A) a web-based Clinical Question Recorder; (B) an Evidence Retrieval Coach composed of eight short educational videos; (C) an Audit, Feedback and Gamification approach to evidence retrieval, based on the allocation of ‘badges’ and ‘reputation scores.’

          We will conduct a randomized factorial controlled trial among all the 904 eligible medical doctors currently registered to MacPLUS FS at the hospitals affiliated with McMaster University, Canada. Postgraduate trainees (n = 429) and clinical faculty/staff (n = 475) will be randomized to each of the three following interventions in a factorial design (A x B x C). Utilization will be continuously recorded through clinicians’ accounts that track logins and usage, down to the level of individual keystrokes. The primary outcome is the rate of searches per month per user during the six months of follow-up. Secondary outcomes, measured through the validated Impact Assessment Method questionnaire, include: utility of answers found (meeting clinicians’ information needs), use (application in practice), and perceived usefulness on patient outcomes.

          Discussion

          Built on effective models for the point-of-care teaching, these interventions approach evidence retrieval as a clinical skill. If effective, they may offer the opportunity to enhance it for a large audience, at low cost, providing better access to relevant evidence across many top EBM resources in parallel.

          Trial registration

          ClinicalTrials.Gov NCT02038439.

          Electronic supplementary material

          The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13012-014-0125-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

          Related collections

          Most cited references46

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          The Smartphone in Medicine: A Review of Current and Potential Use Among Physicians and Students

          Background Advancements in technology have always had major impacts in medicine. The smartphone is one of the most ubiquitous and dynamic trends in communication, in which one’s mobile phone can also be used for communicating via email, performing Internet searches, and using specific applications. The smartphone is one of the fastest growing sectors in the technology industry, and its impact in medicine has already been significant. Objective To provide a comprehensive and up-to-date summary of the role of the smartphone in medicine by highlighting the ways in which it can enhance continuing medical education, patient care, and communication. We also examine the evidence base for this technology. Methods We conducted a review of all published uses of the smartphone that could be applicable to the field of medicine and medical education with the exclusion of only surgical-related uses. Results In the 60 studies that were identified, we found many uses for the smartphone in medicine; however, we also found that very few high-quality studies exist to help us understand how best to use this technology. Conclusions While the smartphone’s role in medicine and education appears promising and exciting, more high-quality studies are needed to better understand the role it will have in this field. We recommend popular smartphone applications for physicians that are lacking in evidence and discuss future studies to support their use.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            A comparison of results of meta-analyses of randomized control trials and recommendations of clinical experts. Treatments for myocardial infarction.

            To examine the temporal relationship between accumulating data from randomized control trials of treatments for myocardial infarction and the recommendations of clinical experts writing review articles and textbook chapters. (1) MEDLINE search from 1966 to present; search terms used were myocardial infarction, clinical trials, multicenter studies, double-blind method, meta-analysis, and the text word "random:"; (2) references from pertinent articles and books; and (3) all editions of English-language general medical texts and manuals and review articles on treatment of myocardial infarction. Randomized control trials of therapies for reducing the risk of total mortality in myocardial infarction (acute and secondary prevention). Review articles and textbook chapters dealing with the general clinical management of patients with myocardial infarction. Two authors read the material and recorded the results; disagreements were resolved by conference. We used the technique of cumulative meta-analysis (performing a new meta-analysis when the results of a new clinical trial are published) and compared the results with the recommendations of the experts for various treatments for myocardial infarction. Discrepancies were detected between the meta-analytic patterns of effectiveness in the randomized trials and the recommendations of reviewers. Review articles often failed to mention important advances or exhibited delays in recommending effective preventive measures. In some cases, treatments that have no effect on mortality or are potentially harmful continued to be recommended by several clinical experts. Finding and analyzing all therapeutic trials in a given field has become such a difficult and specialized task that the clinical experts called on to summarize the evidence in a timely fashion need access to better databases and new statistical techniques to assist them in this important task.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Analysis of questions asked by family doctors regarding patient care.

              To characterise the information needs of family doctors by collecting the questions they asked about patient care during consultations and to classify these in ways that would be useful to developers of knowledge bases. Observational study in which investigators visited doctors for two half days and collected their questions. Taxonomies were developed to characterise the clinical topic and generic type of information sought for each question. Eastern Iowa. Random sample of 103 family doctors. Number of questions posed, pursued, and answered; topic and generic type of information sought for each question; time spent pursuing answers; information resources used. Participants asked a total of 1101 questions. Questions about drug prescribing, obstetrics and gynaecology, and adult infectious disease were most common and comprised 36% of all questions. The taxonomy of generic questions included 69 categories; the three most common types, comprising 24% of all questions, were "What is the cause of symptom X?" "What is the dose of drug X?" and "How should I manage disease or finding X?" Answers to most questions (702, 64%) were not immediately pursued, but, of those pursued, most (318, 80%) were answered. Doctors spent an average of less than 2 minutes pursuing an answer, and they used readily available print and human resources. Only two questions led to a formal literature search. Family doctors in this study did not pursue answers to most of their questions. Questions about patient care can be organised into a limited number of generic types, which could help guide the efforts of knowledge base developers.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                thomas.agoritsas@gmail.com
                iserman@mcmaster.ca
                hobson@mcmaster.ca
                natasha.cohen87@gmail.com
                adamcohen95@gmail.com
                proshano@uwo.ca
                ma-perez@rogers.com
                cotoic@mcmaster.ca
                parrisr@mcmaster.ca
                eleanor.pullenayegum@sickkids.ca
                wilczyn@mcmaster.ca
                iorioa@mcmaster.ca
                bhaynes@mcmaster.ca
                Journal
                Implement Sci
                Implement Sci
                Implementation Science : IS
                BioMed Central (London )
                1748-5908
                20 September 2014
                20 September 2014
                2014
                : 9
                : 1
                : 125
                Affiliations
                [ ]Health Information Research Unit (HiRU), CRL Building, #135, Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Faculty of Health Sciences, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON L8S 4 K1 Canada
                [ ]Department of Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON Canada
                [ ]Adam Cohen Web Designs, Hamilton, ON Canada
                [ ]Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, Western University, London, ON Canada
                [ ]Formerly with the HiRU, Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Faculty of Health Sciences, Hamilton, ON Canada
                [ ]Child Health Evaluative Sciences, Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto; Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON Canada
                Article
                125
                10.1186/s13012-014-0125-9
                4177052
                25239537
                bb723f8c-34af-4e80-81a4-238866f23337
                © Agoritsas et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2014

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                : 4 July 2014
                : 4 September 2014
                Categories
                Study Protocol
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2014

                Medicine
                evidence-based medicine,evidence retrieval,knowledge translation,audit and feedback,web-based resources,search engines

                Comments

                Comment on this article