• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

10 个在线医学文本的内容更新质量、广度和及时性差异很大:一项分析调查。

The quality, breadth, and timeliness of content updating vary substantially for 10 online medical texts: an analytic survey.

机构信息

Health Information Research Unit, Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, 1280 Main Street, West Hamilton, Ontario L8S 4K1, Canada.

出版信息

J Clin Epidemiol. 2012 Dec;65(12):1289-95. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.05.003. Epub 2012 Sep 10.

DOI:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.05.003
PMID:22974495
Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the quality of evidence reporting, breadth of coverage, and timeliness of content updating of 10 selected online medical texts.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Each text was assessed for quality based on an 11-item scale, which included items related to editorial policy and updating, appraisal, and transparent incorporation of newly published clinical research and evidence-based guidelines. Breadth of coverage was determined by the percentage of 60 randomly selected International Classification of Diseases 10 (ICD-10) codes covered by each of the texts. The same 60 ICD-10 codes were used to obtain a sample of topic chapters for the assessment of timeliness of updates.

RESULTS

Quality scores ranged from a high of 9 of 11 points (Clinical Evidence) to a low of 0 of 11 points (PEPID), with a mean score of 6.7. Breadth of coverage ranged from 83% of randomly selected topics covered (UpToDate) to 25% (Clinical Evidence), with 6 of 10 texts covering 60% or more; average coverage across all texts was 57%. Variability was also observed with regard to average time since last content update, ranging from 3.5 (DynaMed) to 29 months (First Consult), with an average time since update of 12.4 months.

CONCLUSION

No single resource was ideal and those seeking answers to clinical questions are well-advised not to rely solely on a single point-of-care product.

摘要

目的

评价 10 种在线医学文本的证据报告质量、涵盖范围和内容更新及时性。

研究设计与设置

根据包括编辑政策和更新、评估以及新发布的临床研究和循证指南的透明纳入等项目的 11 项量表对每种文本进行质量评估。涵盖范围通过每种文本涵盖的 60 个随机选择的国际疾病分类第 10 版 (ICD-10) 代码的百分比来确定。使用相同的 60 个 ICD-10 代码来获取主题章节更新及时性的样本。

结果

质量评分从 11 分中的 9 分(临床证据)到 11 分中的 0 分(PEPID)不等,平均得分为 6.7。涵盖范围从 83%的随机选择主题涵盖(UpToDate)到 25%(临床证据)不等,有 6 种文本涵盖了 60%或更多;所有文本的平均覆盖率为 57%。内容更新的平均时间也存在差异,从 3.5(DynaMed)到 29 个月(First Consult)不等,平均更新时间为 12.4 个月。

结论

没有一个资源是理想的,寻求临床问题答案的人最好不要仅依赖单一的即时产品。

相似文献

1
The quality, breadth, and timeliness of content updating vary substantially for 10 online medical texts: an analytic survey.10 个在线医学文本的内容更新质量、广度和及时性差异很大:一项分析调查。
J Clin Epidemiol. 2012 Dec;65(12):1289-95. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.05.003. Epub 2012 Sep 10.
2
Speed of updating online evidence based point of care summaries: prospective cohort analysis.在线循证护理要点摘要更新速度:前瞻性队列分析。
BMJ. 2011 Sep 23;343:d5856. doi: 10.1136/bmj.d5856.
3
Breadth of Coverage, Ease of Use, and Quality of Mobile Point-of-Care Tool Information Summaries: An Evaluation.移动医疗点工具信息摘要的覆盖广度、易用性及质量:一项评估
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2016 Oct 12;4(4):e117. doi: 10.2196/mhealth.6189.
4
[Procedures and methods of benefit assessments for medicines in Germany].[德国药品效益评估的程序和方法]
Dtsch Med Wochenschr. 2008 Dec;133 Suppl 7:S225-46. doi: 10.1055/s-0028-1100954. Epub 2008 Nov 25.
5
Does updating improve the methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews?更新是否能提高系统评价的方法学质量和报告质量?
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2006 Jun 13;6:27. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-6-27.
6
Procedures and methods of benefit assessments for medicines in Germany.德国药品效益评估的程序和方法。
Eur J Health Econ. 2008 Nov;9 Suppl 1:5-29. doi: 10.1007/s10198-008-0122-5.
7
Does a "Level I Evidence" rating imply high quality of reporting in orthopaedic randomised controlled trials?“一级证据”评级是否意味着骨科随机对照试验的报告质量很高?
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2006 Sep 11;6:44. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-6-44.
8
Health-related quality of life in early breast cancer.早期乳腺癌患者的健康相关生活质量
Dan Med Bull. 2010 Sep;57(9):B4184.
9
A comparison of answer retrieval through four evidence-based textbooks (ACP PIER, Essential Evidence Plus, First Consult, and UpToDate): a randomized controlled trial.通过四本循证医学教科书(ACP PIER、Essential Evidence Plus、First Consult 和 UpToDate)检索答案的比较:一项随机对照试验。
Med Teach. 2011;33(9):724-30. doi: 10.3109/0142159X.2010.531155.
10
Scope for improvement in the quality of reporting of systematic reviews. From the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group.系统评价报告质量的改进空间。来自Cochrane肌肉骨骼组。
J Rheumatol. 2006 Jan;33(1):9-15. Epub 2005 Nov 1.

引用本文的文献

1
Focus on nursing point-of-care tools: application of a new evaluation rubric.关注护理即时工具:新评估量表的应用。
J Med Libr Assoc. 2022 Jul 1;110(3):358-364. doi: 10.5195/jmla.2022.1257.
2
A comparative evaluation of three point-of-care tools by registered nurses.注册护士对三种即时检测工具的比较评估。
J Med Libr Assoc. 2022 Jul 1;110(3):323-331. doi: 10.5195/jmla.2022.1388.
3
Examination of Potential Industry Conflicts of Interest and Disclosures by Contributors to Online Medical Resource Databases.考察在线医学资源数据库贡献者的潜在行业利益冲突和披露情况。
JAMA Netw Open. 2022 Jul 1;5(7):e2220155. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.20155.
4
Guideline Recommendations for Empirical Antimicrobial Therapy: An Appraisal of Research Evidence for Clinical Decision-Making in Ethiopia.经验性抗菌治疗指南推荐:埃塞俄比亚临床决策研究证据评估
Infect Dis Ther. 2020 Sep;9(3):451-465. doi: 10.1007/s40121-020-00308-3. Epub 2020 Jun 22.
5
Tools to Assess the Trustworthiness of Evidence-Based Point-of-Care Information for Health Care Professionals: Systematic Review.用于评估医疗保健专业人员基于证据的即时医疗信息可信度的工具:系统评价
J Med Internet Res. 2020 Jan 17;22(1):e15415. doi: 10.2196/15415.
6
Development of a Search Strategy for an Evidence Based Retrieval Service.基于证据检索服务的检索策略开发
PLoS One. 2016 Dec 9;11(12):e0167170. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0167170. eCollection 2016.
7
Breadth of Coverage, Ease of Use, and Quality of Mobile Point-of-Care Tool Information Summaries: An Evaluation.移动医疗点工具信息摘要的覆盖广度、易用性及质量:一项评估
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2016 Oct 12;4(4):e117. doi: 10.2196/mhealth.6189.
8
Providing Doctors With High-Quality Information: An Updated Evaluation of Web-Based Point-of-Care Information Summaries.为医生提供高质量信息:基于网络的即时医疗信息摘要的最新评估
J Med Internet Res. 2016 Jan 19;18(1):e15. doi: 10.2196/jmir.5234.
9
Electronic resources preferred by pediatric hospitalists for clinical care.儿科住院医师临床护理首选的电子资源。
J Med Libr Assoc. 2015 Oct;103(4):177-83. doi: 10.3163/1536-5050.103.4.003.
10
Using a systematic review in clinical decision making: a pilot parallel, randomized controlled trial.在临床决策中运用系统评价:一项平行试点随机对照试验
Implement Sci. 2015 Aug 15;10:118. doi: 10.1186/s13012-015-0303-4.