Rachel Leah Wasserman, Diane L. Seger, Mary G. Amato, Zoe Co, Aqsa Mugal, Angela Rui, Pamela M. Garabedian, Marlika Marceau, Ania Syrowatka, Lynn A. Volk, David W. Bates
{"title":"直奔主题:评估护理点信息 (POCI) 资源在回答疾病相关问题方面的作用","authors":"Rachel Leah Wasserman, Diane L. Seger, Mary G. Amato, Zoe Co, Aqsa Mugal, Angela Rui, Pamela M. Garabedian, Marlika Marceau, Ania Syrowatka, Lynn A. Volk, David W. Bates","doi":"10.5195/jmla.2024.1770","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: To evaluate the ability of DynaMedex, an evidence-based drug and disease Point of Care Information (POCI) resource, in answering clinical queries using keyword searches.\nMethods: Real-world disease-related questions compiled from clinicians at an academic medical center, DynaMedex search query data, and medical board review resources were categorized into five clinical categories (complications & prognosis, diagnosis & clinical presentation, epidemiology, prevention & screening/monitoring, and treatment) and six specialties (cardiology, endocrinology, hematology-oncology, infectious disease, internal medicine, and neurology). A total of 265 disease-related questions were evaluated by pharmacist reviewers based on if an answer was found (yes, no), whether the answer was relevant (yes, no), difficulty in finding the answer (easy, not easy), cited best evidence available (yes, no), clinical practice guidelines included (yes, no), and level of detail provided (detailed, limited details).\nResults: An answer was found for 259/265 questions (98%). Both reviewers found an answer for 241 questions (91%), neither found the answer for 6 questions (2%), and only one reviewer found an answer for 18 questions (7%). Both reviewers found a relevant answer 97% of the time when an answer was found. Of all relevant answers found, 68% were easy to find, 97% cited best quality of evidence available, 72% included clinical guidelines, and 95% were detailed. Recommendations for areas of resource improvement were identified.\nConclusions: The resource enabled reviewers to answer most questions easily with the best quality of evidence available, providing detailed answers and clinical guidelines, with a high level of replication of results across users.","PeriodicalId":47690,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Medical Library Association","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Straight to the point: evaluation of a Point of Care Information (POCI) resource in answering disease-related questions\",\"authors\":\"Rachel Leah Wasserman, Diane L. Seger, Mary G. Amato, Zoe Co, Aqsa Mugal, Angela Rui, Pamela M. Garabedian, Marlika Marceau, Ania Syrowatka, Lynn A. Volk, David W. Bates\",\"doi\":\"10.5195/jmla.2024.1770\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Objective: To evaluate the ability of DynaMedex, an evidence-based drug and disease Point of Care Information (POCI) resource, in answering clinical queries using keyword searches.\\nMethods: Real-world disease-related questions compiled from clinicians at an academic medical center, DynaMedex search query data, and medical board review resources were categorized into five clinical categories (complications & prognosis, diagnosis & clinical presentation, epidemiology, prevention & screening/monitoring, and treatment) and six specialties (cardiology, endocrinology, hematology-oncology, infectious disease, internal medicine, and neurology). A total of 265 disease-related questions were evaluated by pharmacist reviewers based on if an answer was found (yes, no), whether the answer was relevant (yes, no), difficulty in finding the answer (easy, not easy), cited best evidence available (yes, no), clinical practice guidelines included (yes, no), and level of detail provided (detailed, limited details).\\nResults: An answer was found for 259/265 questions (98%). Both reviewers found an answer for 241 questions (91%), neither found the answer for 6 questions (2%), and only one reviewer found an answer for 18 questions (7%). Both reviewers found a relevant answer 97% of the time when an answer was found. Of all relevant answers found, 68% were easy to find, 97% cited best quality of evidence available, 72% included clinical guidelines, and 95% were detailed. Recommendations for areas of resource improvement were identified.\\nConclusions: The resource enabled reviewers to answer most questions easily with the best quality of evidence available, providing detailed answers and clinical guidelines, with a high level of replication of results across users.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47690,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of the Medical Library Association\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of the Medical Library Association\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2024.1770\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the Medical Library Association","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2024.1770","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
Straight to the point: evaluation of a Point of Care Information (POCI) resource in answering disease-related questions
Objective: To evaluate the ability of DynaMedex, an evidence-based drug and disease Point of Care Information (POCI) resource, in answering clinical queries using keyword searches.
Methods: Real-world disease-related questions compiled from clinicians at an academic medical center, DynaMedex search query data, and medical board review resources were categorized into five clinical categories (complications & prognosis, diagnosis & clinical presentation, epidemiology, prevention & screening/monitoring, and treatment) and six specialties (cardiology, endocrinology, hematology-oncology, infectious disease, internal medicine, and neurology). A total of 265 disease-related questions were evaluated by pharmacist reviewers based on if an answer was found (yes, no), whether the answer was relevant (yes, no), difficulty in finding the answer (easy, not easy), cited best evidence available (yes, no), clinical practice guidelines included (yes, no), and level of detail provided (detailed, limited details).
Results: An answer was found for 259/265 questions (98%). Both reviewers found an answer for 241 questions (91%), neither found the answer for 6 questions (2%), and only one reviewer found an answer for 18 questions (7%). Both reviewers found a relevant answer 97% of the time when an answer was found. Of all relevant answers found, 68% were easy to find, 97% cited best quality of evidence available, 72% included clinical guidelines, and 95% were detailed. Recommendations for areas of resource improvement were identified.
Conclusions: The resource enabled reviewers to answer most questions easily with the best quality of evidence available, providing detailed answers and clinical guidelines, with a high level of replication of results across users.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of the Medical Library Association (JMLA) is an international, peer-reviewed journal published quarterly that aims to advance the practice and research knowledgebase of health sciences librarianship. The most current impact factor for the JMLA (from the 2007 edition of Journal Citation Reports) is 1.392.