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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |