Cargando…

UpToDate versus DynaMed: a cross-sectional study comparing the speed and accuracy of two point-of-care information tools

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 fam...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bradley-Ridout, Glyneva, Nekolaichuk, Erica, Jamieson, Trevor, Jones, Claire, Morson, Natalie, Chuang, Rita, Springall, Elena
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: University Library System, University of Pittsburgh 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8485969/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34629966
http://dx.doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2021.1176
_version_ 1784577641885466624
author Bradley-Ridout, Glyneva
Nekolaichuk, Erica
Jamieson, Trevor
Jones, Claire
Morson, Natalie
Chuang, Rita
Springall, Elena
author_facet Bradley-Ridout, Glyneva
Nekolaichuk, Erica
Jamieson, Trevor
Jones, Claire
Morson, Natalie
Chuang, Rita
Springall, Elena
author_sort Bradley-Ridout, Glyneva
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8485969
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher University Library System, University of Pittsburgh
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-84859692021-10-08 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 J Med Libr Assoc Original Investigation 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. University Library System, University of Pittsburgh 2021-07-01 2021-07-01 /pmc/articles/PMC8485969/ /pubmed/34629966 http://dx.doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2021.1176 Text en Copyright © 2021 Glyneva Bradley-Ridout, Erica Nekolaichuk, Trevor Jamieson, Claire Jones, Natalie Morson, Rita Chuang, Elena Springall https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Original Investigation
Bradley-Ridout, Glyneva
Nekolaichuk, Erica
Jamieson, Trevor
Jones, Claire
Morson, Natalie
Chuang, Rita
Springall, Elena
UpToDate versus DynaMed: a cross-sectional study comparing the speed and accuracy of two point-of-care information tools
title UpToDate versus DynaMed: a cross-sectional study comparing the speed and accuracy of two point-of-care information tools
title_full UpToDate versus DynaMed: a cross-sectional study comparing the speed and accuracy of two point-of-care information tools
title_fullStr UpToDate versus DynaMed: a cross-sectional study comparing the speed and accuracy of two point-of-care information tools
title_full_unstemmed UpToDate versus DynaMed: a cross-sectional study comparing the speed and accuracy of two point-of-care information tools
title_short UpToDate versus DynaMed: a cross-sectional study comparing the speed and accuracy of two point-of-care information tools
title_sort uptodate versus dynamed: a cross-sectional study comparing the speed and accuracy of two point-of-care information tools
topic Original Investigation
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8485969/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34629966
http://dx.doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2021.1176
work_keys_str_mv AT bradleyridoutglyneva uptodateversusdynamedacrosssectionalstudycomparingthespeedandaccuracyoftwopointofcareinformationtools
AT nekolaichukerica uptodateversusdynamedacrosssectionalstudycomparingthespeedandaccuracyoftwopointofcareinformationtools
AT jamiesontrevor uptodateversusdynamedacrosssectionalstudycomparingthespeedandaccuracyoftwopointofcareinformationtools
AT jonesclaire uptodateversusdynamedacrosssectionalstudycomparingthespeedandaccuracyoftwopointofcareinformationtools
AT morsonnatalie uptodateversusdynamedacrosssectionalstudycomparingthespeedandaccuracyoftwopointofcareinformationtools
AT chuangrita uptodateversusdynamedacrosssectionalstudycomparingthespeedandaccuracyoftwopointofcareinformationtools
AT springallelena uptodateversusdynamedacrosssectionalstudycomparingthespeedandaccuracyoftwopointofcareinformationtools