PAIN+和PubMed数据库获取疼痛管理研究证据的有效性:一项随机交叉试验。

IF 2.1 Q1 REHABILITATION
Vanitha Arumugam, Joy C MacDermid, Dave Walton, Ruby Grewal
{"title":"PAIN+和PubMed数据库获取疼痛管理研究证据的有效性:一项随机交叉试验。","authors":"Vanitha Arumugam,&nbsp;Joy C MacDermid,&nbsp;Dave Walton,&nbsp;Ruby Grewal","doi":"10.1186/s40945-021-00100-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>PAIN<sup>+</sup> and PubMed are two electronic databases with two different mechanisms of evidence retrieval. PubMed is used to \"Pull\" evidence where clinicians can enter search terms to find answers while PAIN<sup>+</sup> is a newly developed evidence repository where along with \"Pull\" service there is a \"Push\" service that alerts users about new research and the associated quality ratings, based on the individual preferences for content and altering criteria.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The primary purpose of the study was to compare yield and usefulness of PubMed and PAIN<sup>+</sup> in retrieving evidence to address clinical research questions on pain management. The secondary purpose of the study was to identify what search terms and methods were used by clinicians to target pain research.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>Two-phase double blinded randomized crossover trial.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Clinicians (n = 76) who were exposed to PAIN<sup>+</sup> for at least 1 year took part in this study. Participants were required to search for evidence 2 clinical question scenarios independently. The first clinical question was provided to all participants and thus, was multi-disciplinary. Participants were randomly assigned to search for evidence on their clinical question using either PAIN<sup>+</sup> or PubMed through the electronic interface. Upon completion of the search with one search engine, they were crossed over to the other search engine. A similar process was done for a second scenario that was discipline-specific. The yield was calculated using number of retrieved articles presented to participants and usefulness was evaluated using a series of Likert scale questions embedded in the testing.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Multidisciplinary scenario: Overall, the participants had an overall one-page yield of 715 articles for PAIN<sup>+</sup> and 1135 articles for PubMed. The topmost article retrieved by PAIN<sup>+</sup> was rated as more useful (p = 0.001). While, the topmost article retrieved by PubMed was rated as consistent with current clinical practice (p = 0.02). PubMed (48%) was preferred over PAIN<sup>+</sup> (39%) to perform multidisciplinary search (p = 0.02). Discipline specific scenario: The participants had an overall one-page yield of 1046 articles for PAIN<sup>+</sup> and 1398 articles for PubMed. The topmost article retrieved by PAIN<sup>+</sup> was rated as more useful (p = 0.001) and consistent with current clinical practice (p = 0.02) than the articles retrieved by PubMed. PAIN<sup>+</sup> (52%) was preferred over PubMed (29%) to perform discipline specific search.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Clinicians from different disciplines find both PAIN<sup>+</sup> and PubMed useful for retrieving research studies to address clinical questions about pain management. Greater preferences and perceived usefulness of the top 3 retrieved papers was observed for PAIN<sup>+</sup>, but other dimensions of usefulness did not consistently favor either search engine.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>Registered with ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01348802 , Date: May 5, 2011.</p>","PeriodicalId":72290,"journal":{"name":"Archives of physiotherapy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2021-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1186/s40945-021-00100-7","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The yield and usefulness of PAIN<sup>+</sup> and PubMed databases for accessing research evidence on pain management: a randomized crossover trial.\",\"authors\":\"Vanitha Arumugam,&nbsp;Joy C MacDermid,&nbsp;Dave Walton,&nbsp;Ruby Grewal\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s40945-021-00100-7\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>PAIN<sup>+</sup> and PubMed are two electronic databases with two different mechanisms of evidence retrieval. PubMed is used to \\\"Pull\\\" evidence where clinicians can enter search terms to find answers while PAIN<sup>+</sup> is a newly developed evidence repository where along with \\\"Pull\\\" service there is a \\\"Push\\\" service that alerts users about new research and the associated quality ratings, based on the individual preferences for content and altering criteria.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The primary purpose of the study was to compare yield and usefulness of PubMed and PAIN<sup>+</sup> in retrieving evidence to address clinical research questions on pain management. The secondary purpose of the study was to identify what search terms and methods were used by clinicians to target pain research.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>Two-phase double blinded randomized crossover trial.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Clinicians (n = 76) who were exposed to PAIN<sup>+</sup> for at least 1 year took part in this study. Participants were required to search for evidence 2 clinical question scenarios independently. The first clinical question was provided to all participants and thus, was multi-disciplinary. Participants were randomly assigned to search for evidence on their clinical question using either PAIN<sup>+</sup> or PubMed through the electronic interface. Upon completion of the search with one search engine, they were crossed over to the other search engine. A similar process was done for a second scenario that was discipline-specific. The yield was calculated using number of retrieved articles presented to participants and usefulness was evaluated using a series of Likert scale questions embedded in the testing.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Multidisciplinary scenario: Overall, the participants had an overall one-page yield of 715 articles for PAIN<sup>+</sup> and 1135 articles for PubMed. The topmost article retrieved by PAIN<sup>+</sup> was rated as more useful (p = 0.001). While, the topmost article retrieved by PubMed was rated as consistent with current clinical practice (p = 0.02). PubMed (48%) was preferred over PAIN<sup>+</sup> (39%) to perform multidisciplinary search (p = 0.02). Discipline specific scenario: The participants had an overall one-page yield of 1046 articles for PAIN<sup>+</sup> and 1398 articles for PubMed. The topmost article retrieved by PAIN<sup>+</sup> was rated as more useful (p = 0.001) and consistent with current clinical practice (p = 0.02) than the articles retrieved by PubMed. PAIN<sup>+</sup> (52%) was preferred over PubMed (29%) to perform discipline specific search.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Clinicians from different disciplines find both PAIN<sup>+</sup> and PubMed useful for retrieving research studies to address clinical questions about pain management. Greater preferences and perceived usefulness of the top 3 retrieved papers was observed for PAIN<sup>+</sup>, but other dimensions of usefulness did not consistently favor either search engine.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>Registered with ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01348802 , Date: May 5, 2011.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":72290,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Archives of physiotherapy\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1186/s40945-021-00100-7\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Archives of physiotherapy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40945-021-00100-7\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"REHABILITATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of physiotherapy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40945-021-00100-7","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

简介:PAIN+和PubMed是两个具有两种不同证据检索机制的电子数据库。PubMed用于“拉”证据,临床医生可以输入搜索词来找到答案,而PAIN+是一个新开发的证据存储库,除了“拉”服务之外,还有一个“推送”服务,根据个人对内容的偏好和不断变化的标准,提醒用户新的研究和相关的质量评级。目的:本研究的主要目的是比较PubMed和PAIN+在检索证据以解决疼痛管理的临床研究问题方面的产量和有用性。该研究的第二个目的是确定临床医生在针对疼痛的研究中使用了哪些搜索词和方法。研究设计:两期双盲随机交叉试验。方法:76名接受PAIN+治疗至少1年的临床医生参与本研究。参与者被要求独立搜索证据2临床问题场景。第一个临床问题提供给所有参与者,因此是多学科的。参与者被随机分配到通过电子界面使用PAIN+或PubMed搜索有关其临床问题的证据。在一个搜索引擎完成搜索后,他们被转移到另一个搜索引擎。对第二个特定于学科的场景进行了类似的处理。使用呈现给参与者的检索文章的数量来计算产量,并使用嵌入在测试中的一系列李克特量表问题来评估有用性。结果:多学科场景:总体而言,参与者在PAIN+上有715篇文章,在PubMed上有1135篇文章。被PAIN+检索到的最顶端的文章被认为更有用(p = 0.001)。而PubMed检索到的排名靠前的文章被评为与当前临床实践一致(p = 0.02)。PubMed(48%)优于PAIN+(39%)进行多学科检索(p = 0.02)。特定学科的场景:参与者在PAIN+上有1046篇文章,在PubMed上有1398篇文章。与PubMed检索到的文章相比,通过PAIN+检索到的排名靠前的文章被评为更有用(p = 0.001),与当前临床实践一致(p = 0.02)。在进行学科特定搜索时,PAIN+(52%)优于PubMed(29%)。结论:来自不同学科的临床医生发现PAIN+和PubMed都有助于检索研究结果,以解决有关疼痛管理的临床问题。我们观察到,前3名检索论文对PAIN+有更大的偏好和感知有用性,但其他有用性维度并没有一致地支持任何一个搜索引擎。试验注册:在ClinicalTrials.gov注册编号:NCT01348802,日期:2011年5月5日。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

The yield and usefulness of PAIN<sup>+</sup> and PubMed databases for accessing research evidence on pain management: a randomized crossover trial.

The yield and usefulness of PAIN<sup>+</sup> and PubMed databases for accessing research evidence on pain management: a randomized crossover trial.

The yield and usefulness of PAIN<sup>+</sup> and PubMed databases for accessing research evidence on pain management: a randomized crossover trial.

The yield and usefulness of PAIN+ and PubMed databases for accessing research evidence on pain management: a randomized crossover trial.

Introduction: PAIN+ and PubMed are two electronic databases with two different mechanisms of evidence retrieval. PubMed is used to "Pull" evidence where clinicians can enter search terms to find answers while PAIN+ is a newly developed evidence repository where along with "Pull" service there is a "Push" service that alerts users about new research and the associated quality ratings, based on the individual preferences for content and altering criteria.

Purpose: The primary purpose of the study was to compare yield and usefulness of PubMed and PAIN+ in retrieving evidence to address clinical research questions on pain management. The secondary purpose of the study was to identify what search terms and methods were used by clinicians to target pain research.

Study design: Two-phase double blinded randomized crossover trial.

Methods: Clinicians (n = 76) who were exposed to PAIN+ for at least 1 year took part in this study. Participants were required to search for evidence 2 clinical question scenarios independently. The first clinical question was provided to all participants and thus, was multi-disciplinary. Participants were randomly assigned to search for evidence on their clinical question using either PAIN+ or PubMed through the electronic interface. Upon completion of the search with one search engine, they were crossed over to the other search engine. A similar process was done for a second scenario that was discipline-specific. The yield was calculated using number of retrieved articles presented to participants and usefulness was evaluated using a series of Likert scale questions embedded in the testing.

Results: Multidisciplinary scenario: Overall, the participants had an overall one-page yield of 715 articles for PAIN+ and 1135 articles for PubMed. The topmost article retrieved by PAIN+ was rated as more useful (p = 0.001). While, the topmost article retrieved by PubMed was rated as consistent with current clinical practice (p = 0.02). PubMed (48%) was preferred over PAIN+ (39%) to perform multidisciplinary search (p = 0.02). Discipline specific scenario: The participants had an overall one-page yield of 1046 articles for PAIN+ and 1398 articles for PubMed. The topmost article retrieved by PAIN+ was rated as more useful (p = 0.001) and consistent with current clinical practice (p = 0.02) than the articles retrieved by PubMed. PAIN+ (52%) was preferred over PubMed (29%) to perform discipline specific search.

Conclusion: Clinicians from different disciplines find both PAIN+ and PubMed useful for retrieving research studies to address clinical questions about pain management. Greater preferences and perceived usefulness of the top 3 retrieved papers was observed for PAIN+, but other dimensions of usefulness did not consistently favor either search engine.

Trial registration: Registered with ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01348802 , Date: May 5, 2011.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
10 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信