Center for Educational Research in Medical Sciences, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
PLoS One. 2011;6(8):e23487. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0023487. Epub 2011 Aug 12.
To compare PubMed Clinical Queries and UpToDate regarding the amount and speed of information retrieval and users' satisfaction.
A cross-over randomized trial was conducted in February 2009 in Tehran University of Medical Sciences that included 44 year-one or two residents who participated in an information mastery workshop. A one-hour lecture on the principles of information mastery was organized followed by self learning slide shows before using each database. Subsequently, participants were randomly assigned to answer 2 clinical scenarios using either UpToDate or PubMed Clinical Queries then crossed to use the other database to answer 2 different clinical scenarios. The proportion of relevantly answered clinical scenarios, time to answer retrieval, and users' satisfaction were measured in each database.
Based on intention-to-treat analysis, participants retrieved the answer of 67 (76%) questions using UpToDate and 38 (43%) questions using PubMed Clinical Queries (P<0.001). The median time to answer retrieval was 17 min (95% CI: 16 to 18) using UpToDate compared to 29 min (95% CI: 26 to 32) using PubMed Clinical Queries (P<0.001). The satisfaction with the accuracy of retrieved answers, interaction with UpToDate and also overall satisfaction were higher among UpToDate users compared to PubMed Clinical Queries users (P<0.001).
For first time users, using UpToDate compared to Pubmed Clinical Queries can lead to not only a higher proportion of relevant answer retrieval within a shorter time, but also a higher users' satisfaction. So, addition of tutoring pre-appraised sources such as UpToDate to the information mastery curricula seems to be highly efficient.
比较 PubMed Clinical Queries 和 UpToDate 在信息检索的数量和速度以及用户满意度方面的差异。
2009 年 2 月，在德黑兰医科大学进行了一项交叉随机试验，纳入了 44 名参加信息掌握研讨会的一年级或二年级住院医师。首先组织了一个关于信息掌握原则的 1 小时讲座，然后在使用每个数据库之前，自学幻灯片。随后，参与者被随机分配使用 UpToDate 或 PubMed Clinical Queries 回答 2 个临床场景，然后交叉使用另一个数据库回答 2 个不同的临床场景。在每个数据库中测量相关回答临床场景的比例、检索回答的时间和用户满意度。
根据意向治疗分析，参与者使用 UpToDate 回答了 67（76%）个问题，使用 PubMed Clinical Queries 回答了 38（43%）个问题（P<0.001）。使用 UpToDate 回答检索的中位数时间为 17 分钟（95%CI：16 至 18），而使用 PubMed Clinical Queries 则为 29 分钟（95%CI：26 至 32）（P<0.001）。与 PubMed Clinical Queries 用户相比，UpToDate 用户对检索答案的准确性、与 UpToDate 的交互以及整体满意度的满意度更高（P<0.001）。
对于首次使用者，与 PubMed Clinical Queries 相比，使用 UpToDate 不仅可以在更短的时间内获得更高比例的相关答案检索，而且还可以获得更高的用户满意度。因此，将经过预评估的资源（如 UpToDate）添加到信息掌握课程中似乎非常有效。
