Skip to main content
release_alert
Welcome to the new Scholars 3.0! Read about new features and let us know what you think.
cancel

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: Journal of the Medical Library Association : Jmla
October 2006

The paper compares the speed, validity, and applicability of two different protocols for searching the primary medical literature.A randomized trial involving medicine residents was performed.An inpatient general medicine rotation was used.Thirty-two internal medicine residents were block randomized into four groups of eight.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.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.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

Journal of the Medical Library Association : Jmla

EISSN

1558-9439

ISSN

1536-5050

Publication Date

October 2006

Volume

94

Issue

4

Start / End Page

382 / 387

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. Journal of the Medical Library Association : Jmla, 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.Journal of the Medical Library Association : Jmla 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. Journal of the Medical Library Association : Jmla. 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.Journal of the Medical Library Association : Jmla, 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. Journal of the Medical Library Association : Jmla. 2006 Oct;94(4):382–387.

Published In

Journal of the Medical Library Association : Jmla

EISSN

1558-9439

ISSN

1536-5050

Publication Date

October 2006

Volume

94

Issue

4

Start / End Page

382 / 387

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