Your browser doesn't support javascript.

BVS del Sindicato Médico del Uruguay

Portal de Búsqueda de la BVS

Home > Búsqueda > ()
XML
Imprimir Exportar

Formato de exportación:

Exportar

Email
Adicionar mas contactos
| |

A comparative evaluation of PDQ-Evidence.

Johansen, Marit; Rada, Gabriel; Rosenbaum, Sarah; Paulsen, Elizabeth; Motaze, Nkengafac Villyen; Opiyo, Newton; Wiysonge, Charles S; Ding, Yunpeng; Mukinda, Fidele K; Oxman, Andrew D.
Health Res Policy Syst; 16(1): 27, 2018 Mar 15.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29544510

BACKGROUND:

A strategy for minimising the time and obstacles to accessing systematic reviews of health system evidence is to collect them in a freely available database and make them easy to find through a simple 'Google-style' search interface. PDQ-Evidence was developed in this way. The objective of this study was to compare PDQ-Evidence to six other databases, namely Cochrane Library, EVIPNet VHL, Google Scholar, Health Systems Evidence, PubMed and Trip.

METHODS:

We recruited healthcare policy-makers, managers and health researchers in low-, middle- and high-income countries. Participants selected one of six pre-determined questions. They searched for a systematic review that addressed the chosen question and one question of their own in PDQ-Evidence and in two of the other six databases which they would normally have searched. We randomly allocated participants to search PDQ-Evidence first or to search the two other databases first. The primary outcomes were whether a systematic review was found and the time taken to find it. Secondary outcomes were perceived ease of use and perceived time spent searching. We asked open-ended questions about PDQ-Evidence, including likes, dislikes, challenges and suggestions for improvements.

RESULTS:

A total of 89 people from 21 countries completed the study; 83 were included in the primary analyses and 6 were excluded because of data errors that could not be corrected. Most participants chose PubMed and Cochrane Library as the other two databases. Participants were more likely to find a systematic review using PDQ-Evidence than using Cochrane Library or PubMed for the pre-defined questions. For their own questions, this difference was not found. Overall, it took slightly less time to find a systematic review using PDQ-Evidence. Participants perceived that it took less time, and most participants perceived PDQ-Evidence to be slightly easier to use than the two other databases. However, there were conflicting views about the design of PDQ-Evidence.

CONCLUSIONS:

PDQ-Evidence is at least as efficient as other databases for finding health system evidence. However, using PDQ-Evidence is not intuitive for some people.TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was prospectively registered in the ISRCTN registry 17 April 2015.Registration number: ISRCTN12742235 .