Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the quality of information retrieved in MEDLINE searches performed to answer clinical questions of primary care physicians. SETTING: Ambulatory rural and nonrural practices. PARTICIPANTS: Active, non-academic primary care physicians; professional medical librarians, a general internist. DESIGN: Descriptive study in 3 stages: 1) Office Interviews, to record questions that arise in primary care practice; 2) Online Searches, to locate information that might answer these questions; and 3) Critical Appraisal to determine the quality of the information contained in the articles retrieved. MAIN RESULTS: Of 74 articles judged by clinicians to be relevant to their questions, 2 were critical reviews, 14 reported results of randomized controlled trials, and 4 reported results of cohort studies. The remainder contained weaker evidence: 1 reported results of a case-control study, 6 were longitudinal case series, 13 were cross-sectional descriptions of disease, 12 were cross-sectional descriptions of diagnostic testing, and 22 were review articles which did not meet criteria for a critical review. CONCLUSION: Searching the medical literature to answer the questions of primary care physicians was successful in retrieving recent, relevant information, and often provided "a clear answer" to the question, but the cost of using bibliographic retrieval was high, and fewer than a third of the articles retrieved contained high quality evidence.
Full text
PDF
Selected References
These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
- Antman E. M., Lau J., Kupelnick B., Mosteller F., Chalmers T. C. A comparison of results of meta-analyses of randomized control trials and recommendations of clinical experts. Treatments for myocardial infarction. JAMA. 1992 Jul 8;268(2):240–248. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Connelly D. P., Rich E. C., Curley S. P., Kelly J. T. Knowledge resource preferences of family physicians. J Fam Pract. 1990 Mar;30(3):353–359. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Covell D. G., Uman G. C., Manning P. R. Information needs in office practice: are they being met? Ann Intern Med. 1985 Oct;103(4):596–599. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-103-4-596. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Divine G. W., Brown J. T., Frazier L. M. The unit of analysis error in studies about physicians' patient care behavior. J Gen Intern Med. 1992 Nov-Dec;7(6):623–629. doi: 10.1007/BF02599201. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Echt D. S., Liebson P. R., Mitchell L. B., Peters R. W., Obias-Manno D., Barker A. H., Arensberg D., Baker A., Friedman L., Greene H. L. Mortality and morbidity in patients receiving encainide, flecainide, or placebo. The Cardiac Arrhythmia Suppression Trial. N Engl J Med. 1991 Mar 21;324(12):781–788. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199103213241201. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group Evidence-based medicine. A new approach to teaching the practice of medicine. JAMA. 1992 Nov 4;268(17):2420–2425. doi: 10.1001/jama.1992.03490170092032. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Fletcher R. H., Fletcher S. W. Clinical research in general medical journals: a 30-year perspective. N Engl J Med. 1979 Jul 26;301(4):180–183. doi: 10.1056/NEJM197907263010403. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Greer A. L. The state of the art versus the state of the science. The diffusion of new medical technologies into practice. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1988;4(1):5–26. doi: 10.1017/s0266462300003202. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Guyatt G. H., Oxman A. D., Ali M., Willan A., McIlroy W., Patterson C. Laboratory diagnosis of iron-deficiency anemia: an overview. J Gen Intern Med. 1992 Mar-Apr;7(2):145–153. doi: 10.1007/BF02598003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Haynes R. B., Ramsden M. F., McKibbon K. A., Walker C. J. Online access to MEDLINE in clinical settings: impact of user fees. Bull Med Libr Assoc. 1991 Oct;79(4):377–381. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Kassirer J. P. Learning medicine. Too many books, too few journals. N Engl J Med. 1992 May 21;326(21):1427–1428. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199205213262110. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- McKibbon K. A., Haynes R. B., Dilks C. J., Ramsden M. F., Ryan N. C., Baker L., Flemming T., Fitzgerald D. How good are clinical MEDLINE searches? A comparative study of clinical end-user and librarian searches. Comput Biomed Res. 1990 Dec;23(6):583–593. doi: 10.1016/0010-4809(90)90042-b. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Rabeneck L., Viscoli C. M., Horwitz R. I. Problems in the conduct and analysis of randomized clinical trials. Are we getting the right answers to the wrong questions? Arch Intern Med. 1992 Mar;152(3):507–512. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Stross J. K., Harlan W. R. The dissemination of new medical information. JAMA. 1979 Jun 15;241(24):2622–2624. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Williamson J. W., German P. S., Weiss R., Skinner E. A., Bowes F., 3rd Health science information management and continuing education of physicians. A survey of U.S. primary care practitioners and their opinion leaders. Ann Intern Med. 1989 Jan 15;110(2):151–160. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-110-2-151. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Yusuf S., Peto R., Lewis J., Collins R., Sleight P. Beta blockade during and after myocardial infarction: an overview of the randomized trials. Prog Cardiovasc Dis. 1985 Mar-Apr;27(5):335–371. doi: 10.1016/s0033-0620(85)80003-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]