Instructional Service Librarian, Medical Sciences Library, Texas A&M University, 4462 TAMU College Station, TX 77843-4462, USA.
J Med Libr Assoc. 2011 Jul;99(3):247-54. doi: 10.3163/1536-5050.99.3.012.
The research sought to establish a rubric for evaluating evidence-based medicine (EBM) point-of-care tools in a health sciences library.
The authors searched the literature for EBM tool evaluations and found that most previous reviews were designed to evaluate the ability of an EBM tool to answer a clinical question. The researchers' goal was to develop and complete rubrics for assessing these tools based on criteria for a general evaluation of tools (reviewing content, search options, quality control, and grading) and criteria for an evaluation of clinical summaries (searching tools for treatments of common diagnoses and evaluating summaries for quality control).
Differences between EBM tools' options, content coverage, and usability were minimal. However, the products' methods for locating and grading evidence varied widely in transparency and process.
As EBM tools are constantly updating and evolving, evaluation of these tools needs to be conducted frequently. Standards for evaluating EBM tools need to be established, with one method being the use of objective rubrics. In addition, EBM tools need to provide more information about authorship, reviewers, methods for evidence collection, and grading system employed.
本研究旨在为卫生科学图书馆中的循证医学（EBM）即时工具评估建立一个评分细则。
作者在文献中搜索了 EBM 工具评估，并发现以前的大多数评估旨在评估 EBM 工具回答临床问题的能力。研究人员的目标是根据工具评估的一般标准（审查内容、搜索选项、质量控制和分级）以及临床总结评估的标准（为常见诊断寻找治疗方法并评估总结的质量控制）来开发和完成评估这些工具的细则。
EBM 工具的选项、内容覆盖范围和可用性之间的差异很小。然而，产品用于查找和评估证据的方法在透明度和过程方面差异很大。
随着 EBM 工具的不断更新和发展，需要频繁地对这些工具进行评估。需要建立评估 EBM 工具的标准，一种方法是使用客观的评分细则。此外，EBM 工具需要提供有关作者、审阅者、证据收集方法和采用的分级系统的更多信息。
