Providing Doctors With High-Quality Information: An Updated Evaluation of Web-Based Point-of-Care Information Summaries

Abstract

Background The complexity of modern practice requires health professionals to be active information-seekers. Objective Our aim was to review the quality and progress of point-of-care information summaries—Web-based medical compendia that are specifically designed to deliver pre-digested, rapidly accessible, comprehensive, and periodically updated information to health care providers. We aimed to evaluate product claims of being evidence-based. Methods We updated our previous evaluations by searching Medline, Google, librarian association websites, and conference proceedings from August 2012 to December 2014. We included Web-based, regularly updated point-of-care information summaries with claims of being evidence-based. We extracted data on the general characteristics and content presentation of products, and we quantitatively assessed their breadth of disease coverage, editorial quality, and evidence-based methodology. We assessed potential relationships between these dimensions and compared them with our 2008 assessment. Results We screened 58 products; 26 met our inclusion criteria. Nearly a quarter (6/26, 23%) were newly identified in 2014. We accessed and analyzed 23 products for content presentation and quantitative dimensions. Most summaries were developed by major publishers in the United States and the United Kingdom; no products derived from low- and middle-income countries. The main target audience remained physicians, although nurses and physiotherapists were increasingly represented. Best Practice, Dynamed, and UptoDate scored the highest across all dimensions. The majority of products did not excel across all dimensions: we found only a moderate positive correlation between editorial quality and evidence-based methodology ( r =.41, P =.0496). However, all dimensions improved from 2008: editorial quality ( P =.01), evidence-based methodology ( P =.015), and volume of diseases and medical conditions ( P <.001). Conclusions Medical and scientific publishers are investing substantial resources towards the development and maintenance of point-of-care summaries. The number of these products has increased since 2008 along with their quality. Best Practice, Dynamed, and UptoDate scored the highest across all dimensions, while others that were marketed as evidence-based were less reliable. Individuals and institutions should regularly assess the value of point-of-care summaries as their quality changes rapidly over time.

A clinical decision support system improves antibiotic therapy for upper urinary tract infection in a randomized single-blinded study

“…In the only study analyzing the impact of a CDSS on compliance with guidelines on antibiotic treatment of urinary tract infection, around 30% of clinicians named the appropriate antibiotic and duration [18]. Our study points to the fact that medical doctors require support through information tools in their daily routine [22].…”

Prescribing information sources for healthcare professionals

“…Typically, such resources present common medical scenarios and provide updated information on diagnosis, treatment, management and drug treatment options. A review of online information resources (including CKS) assessed quality of the editorial process, evidence-based methodology and breadth of medical conditions covered 10. Best Practice, Dynamed and UptoDate scored highest across all measures.…”

Online clinical decision support: how it is used at the point-of-care

“…The best tools cover a wide range of diseases and uphold the highest standards in editorial quality and evidence-based methodology. While there have been a number of analyses of how existing tools satisfy these criteria, there have been few studies of how point-of-care clinical decision support tools are actually used 1. Many papers also look at referential sources of information rather than those that are actually used at the point-of-care 2 3…”