BackgroundIn searches for clinical trials and systematic reviews, it is said that Google Scholar (GS) should never be used in isolation, but in addition to PubMed, Cochrane, and other trusted sources of information. We therefore performed a study to assess the coverage of GS specifically for the studies included in systematic reviews and evaluate if GS was sensitive enough to be used alone for systematic reviews.MethodsAll the original studies included in 29 systematic reviews published in the Cochrane Database Syst Rev or in the JAMA in 2009 were gathered in a gold standard database. GS was searched for all these studies one by one to assess the percentage of studies which could have been identified by searching only GS.ResultsAll the 738 original studies included in the gold standard database were retrieved in GS (100%).ConclusionThe coverage of GS for the studies included in the systematic reviews is 100%. If the authors of the 29 systematic reviews had used only GS, no reference would have been missed. With some improvement in the research options, to increase its precision, GS could become the leading bibliographic database in medicine and could be used alone for systematic reviews.

SummaryObjectives: To analyze the attitude of physicians towards alerting in CPOE systems in different hospitals in different countries, addressing various organizational and technical settings and the view of physicians not currently using a CPOE.Methods: A cross-sectional quantitative and qualitative questionnaire survey. We invited 2,600 physicians in eleven hospitals from nine countries to participate. Eight of the hospitals had different CPOE systems in use, and three of the participating hospitals were not using a CPOE system.Results: 1,018 physicians participated. The general attitude of the physicians towards CPOE alerting is positive and is found to be mostly independent of the country, the specific organizational settings in the hospitals and their personal experience with CPOE systems. Both quantitative and qualitative results show that the majority of the physicians, both CPOE-users and non-users, appreciate the benefits of alerting in CPOE systems on medication safety. However, alerting should be better adapted to the clinical context and make use of more sophisticated ways to present alert information. The vast majority of physicians agree that additional information regarding interactions is useful on demand. Around half of the respondents see possible alert overload as a major problem; in this regard, physicians in hospitals with sophisticated alerting strategies show partly better attitude scores.Conclusions: Our results indicate that the way alerting information is presented to the physicians may play a role in their general attitude towards alerting, and that hospitals with a sophisticated alerting strategy with less interruptive alerts tend towards more positive attitudes. This aspect needs to be further investigated in future studies.

Background: The Script Concordance test (SC) test is an assessment tool that measures the capacity to solve ill-defined problems, that is, reasoning in a context of uncertainty. This study assesses the feasibility, reliability and validity of the SC test made available on the Web to French urologists.