How to perform a literature search.

PURPOSE: Evidence based clinical practice seeks to integrate the current best evidence from clinical research with physician clinical expertise and patient individual preferences. We outline a stepwise approach to an effective and efficient search of electronic databases and introduce the reader to resources most relevant to the practicing urologist. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The need for additional research evidence is introduced in the context of a urological clinical scenario. This information need is translated into a focused clinical question using the PICOT (population, intervention, comparison, outcome and type of study) format. This PICOT format provides key words for a literature search of pre-appraised evidence and original research studies that address the clinical scenario. RESULTS: Available online resources can be broadly categorized into databases that focus on primary research studies, ie randomized, controlled trials, cohort studies, case-control or case series, such as MEDLINE and those that focus on secondary research that provides synthesis or synopsis of primary studies. Examples of such sources of pre-appraised evidence that are becoming increasingly relevant to urologists include BMJ Clinical Evidence, ACP Journal Club, The Cochrane Library and the National Guideline Clearinghouse. CONCLUSIONS: The ability to search the medical literature in a time efficient manner represents an important part of an evidence based practice that is relevant to all urologists. The use of electronic databases of pre-appraised evidence can greatly expedite the search for high quality evidence, which is then integrated with urologist clinical skills and patient individual circumstances.

Randomized trial for answers to clinical questions: evaluating a pre-appraised versus a MEDLINE search protocol.

OBJECTIVE: The paper compares the speed, validity, and applicability of two different protocols for searching the primary medical literature. DESIGN: A randomized trial involving medicine residents was performed. SETTING: An inpatient general medicine rotation was used. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-two internal medicine residents were block randomized into four groups of eight. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Success rate of each search protocol was measured by perceived search time, number of questions answered, and proportion of articles that were applicable and valid. RESULTS: Residents randomized to the MEDLINE-first (protocol A) group searched 120 questions, and residents randomized to the MEDLINE-last (protocol B) searched 133 questions. In protocol A, 104 answers (86.7%) and, in protocol B, 117 answers (88%) were found to clinical questions. In protocol A, residents reported that 26 (25.2%) of the answers were obtained quickly or rated as "fast" (<5 minutes) as opposed to 55 (51.9%) in protocol B, (P = 0.0004). A subset of questions and articles (n = 79) were reviewed by faculty who found that both protocols identified similar numbers of answer articles that addressed the questions and were felt to be valid using critical appraisal criteria. CONCLUSION: For resident-generated clinical questions, both protocols produced a similarly high percentage of applicable and valid articles. The MEDLINE-last search protocol was perceived to be faster. However, in the MEDLINE-last protocol, a significant portion of questions (23%) still required searching MEDLINE to find an answer.

askMEDLINE: a report on a year-long experience.

askMEDLINE is a free-text, natural language search tool for MEDLINE/PubMed. Since its introduction a year ago, more than 15,000 queries have been received, mostly in the form of questions or complex phrases. Questions on therapy were the most searched. We review our yearlong experience, an updated evaluation using 'gold standard' questions selected by EBM experts and discuss added features.

A Web-based compendium of clinical questions and medical evidence to educate internal medicine residents.

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.