Skip to main content

Randomized trial for answers to clinical questions: evaluating a pre-appraised versus a MEDLINE search protocol.

Publication ,  Journal Article
Patel, MR; Schardt, CM; Sanders, LL; Keitz, SA
Published in: J Med Libr Assoc
October 2006

OBJECTIVE: The paper compares the speed, validity, and applicability of two different protocols for searching the primary medical literature. DESIGN: A randomized trial involving medicine residents was performed. SETTING: An inpatient general medicine rotation was used. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-two internal medicine residents were block randomized into four groups of eight. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Success rate of each search protocol was measured by perceived search time, number of questions answered, and proportion of articles that were applicable and valid. RESULTS: Residents randomized to the MEDLINE-first (protocol A) group searched 120 questions, and residents randomized to the MEDLINE-last (protocol B) searched 133 questions. In protocol A, 104 answers (86.7%) and, in protocol B, 117 answers (88%) were found to clinical questions. In protocol A, residents reported that 26 (25.2%) of the answers were obtained quickly or rated as "fast" (<5 minutes) as opposed to 55 (51.9%) in protocol B, (P = 0.0004). A subset of questions and articles (n = 79) were reviewed by faculty who found that both protocols identified similar numbers of answer articles that addressed the questions and were felt to be valid using critical appraisal criteria. CONCLUSION: For resident-generated clinical questions, both protocols produced a similarly high percentage of applicable and valid articles. The MEDLINE-last search protocol was perceived to be faster. However, in the MEDLINE-last protocol, a significant portion of questions (23%) still required searching MEDLINE to find an answer.

Duke Scholars

Published In

J Med Libr Assoc

EISSN

1558-9439

Publication Date

October 2006

Volume

94

Issue

4

Start / End Page

382 / 387

Location

United States

Related Subject Headings

  • MEDLINE
  • Internship and Residency
  • Internal Medicine
  • Information Storage and Retrieval
  • Information Services
  • Information & Library Sciences
  • Humans
  • Evidence-Based Medicine
  • Databases, Factual
  • Computer User Training
 

Citation

APA
Chicago
ICMJE
MLA
NLM
Patel, M. R., Schardt, C. M., Sanders, L. L., & Keitz, S. A. (2006). Randomized trial for answers to clinical questions: evaluating a pre-appraised versus a MEDLINE search protocol. J Med Libr Assoc, 94(4), 382–387.
Patel, Manesh R., Connie M. Schardt, Linda L. Sanders, and Sheri A. Keitz. “Randomized trial for answers to clinical questions: evaluating a pre-appraised versus a MEDLINE search protocol.J Med Libr Assoc 94, no. 4 (October 2006): 382–87.
Patel MR, Schardt CM, Sanders LL, Keitz SA. Randomized trial for answers to clinical questions: evaluating a pre-appraised versus a MEDLINE search protocol. J Med Libr Assoc. 2006 Oct;94(4):382–7.
Patel, Manesh R., et al. “Randomized trial for answers to clinical questions: evaluating a pre-appraised versus a MEDLINE search protocol.J Med Libr Assoc, vol. 94, no. 4, Oct. 2006, pp. 382–87.
Patel MR, Schardt CM, Sanders LL, Keitz SA. Randomized trial for answers to clinical questions: evaluating a pre-appraised versus a MEDLINE search protocol. J Med Libr Assoc. 2006 Oct;94(4):382–387.

Published In

J Med Libr Assoc

EISSN

1558-9439

Publication Date

October 2006

Volume

94

Issue

4

Start / End Page

382 / 387

Location

United States

Related Subject Headings

  • MEDLINE
  • Internship and Residency
  • Internal Medicine
  • Information Storage and Retrieval
  • Information Services
  • Information & Library Sciences
  • Humans
  • Evidence-Based Medicine
  • Databases, Factual
  • Computer User Training