Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
UpToDate versus DynaMed: a cross-sectional study comparing the speed and accuracy of two point-of-care information tools.
Bradley-Ridout, Glyneva; Nekolaichuk, Erica; Jamieson, Trevor; Jones, Claire; Morson, Natalie; Chuang, Rita; Springall, Elena.
Afiliação
  • Bradley-Ridout G; glyneva.bradley.ridout@utoronto.ca, Gerstein Science Information Center, University of Toronto Libraries, University of Toronto, Canada.
  • Nekolaichuk E; erica.lenton@utoronto.ca, Gerstein Science Information Center, University of Toronto Libraries, University of Toronto, Canada.
  • Jamieson T; trevorjam@me.com, Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Division of General Internal Medicine, Unity Health Toronto, Canada.
  • Jones C; claire.jones@sinaihealth.ca, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Toronto, Mount Sinai Fertility, Sinai Health System, Toronto, Canada.
  • Morson N; natalie.morson@sinaihealth.ca, Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Toronto, Mount Sinai Academic Family Health Team, Sinai Health System, Toronto, Canada.
  • Chuang R; rita.chuang@mail.utoronto.ca, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Toronto, Canada.
  • Springall E; elena.springall@utoronto.ca, Gerstein Science Information Center, University of Toronto Libraries, University of Toronto, Canada.
J Med Libr Assoc ; 109(3): 382-387, 2021 Jul 01.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34629966
ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE:

To compare the accuracy, time to answer, user confidence, and user satisfaction between UpToDate and DynaMed (formerly DynaMed Plus), which are two popular point-of-care information tools.

METHODS:

A crossover study was conducted with medical residents in obstetrics and gynecology and family medicine at the University of Toronto in order to compare the speed and accuracy with which they retrieved answers to clinical questions using UpToDate and DynaMed. Experiments took place between February 2017 and December 2019. Following a short tutorial on how to use each tool and completion of a background survey, participants attempted to find answers to two clinical questions in each tool. Time to answer each question, the chosen answer, confidence score, and satisfaction score were recorded for each clinical question.

RESULTS:

A total of 57 residents took part in the experiment, including 32 from family medicine and 25 from obstetrics and gynecology. Accuracy in clinical answers was equal between UpToDate (average 1.35 out of 2) and DynaMed (average 1.36 out of 2). However, time to answer was 2.5 minutes faster in UpToDate compared to DynaMed. Participants were also more confident and satisfied with their answers in UpToDate compared to DynaMed.

CONCLUSIONS:

Despite a preference for UpToDate and a higher confidence in responses, the accuracy of clinical answers in UpToDate was equal to those in DynaMed. Previous exposure to UpToDate likely played a major role in participants' preferences. More research in this area is recommended.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Sistemas Automatizados de Assistência Junto ao Leito / Medicina Baseada em Evidências / Ginecologia / Obstetrícia Tipo de estudo: Clinical_trials / Observational_studies / Prevalence_studies / Risk_factors_studies Limite: Humans Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2021 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Sistemas Automatizados de Assistência Junto ao Leito / Medicina Baseada em Evidências / Ginecologia / Obstetrícia Tipo de estudo: Clinical_trials / Observational_studies / Prevalence_studies / Risk_factors_studies Limite: Humans Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2021 Tipo de documento: Article