文章基本信息

标题：UpToDate versus DynaMed: a cross-sectional study comparing the speed and accuracy of two point-of-care information tools
本地全文：下载
作者：Glyneva Bradley-Ridout ; Erica Nekolaichuk ; Trevor Jamieson 等
期刊名称：Journal of the Medical Library Association
印刷版ISSN：1536-5050
出版年度：2021
卷号：109
期号：3
页码：382-387
DOI：10.5195/jmla.2021.1176
语种：English
出版社：Medical Library Association
摘要：Objective: To compare the accuracy, time to answer, user confidence, and user satisfaction between UpToDate and DynaMed (formerly DynaMed Plus), which are two popular point-of-care information tools. Methods: A crossover study was conducted with medical residents in obstetrics and gynecology and family medicine at the University of Toronto in order to compare the speed and accuracy with which they retrieved answers to clinical questions using UpToDate and DynaMed. Experiments took place between February 2017 and December 2019. Following a short tutorial on how to use each tool and completion of a background survey, participants attempted to find answers to two clinical questions in each tool. Time to answer each question, the chosen answer, confidence score, and satisfaction score were recorded for each clinical question. Results: A total of 57 residents took part in the experiment, including 32 from family medicine and 25 from obstetrics and gynecology. Accuracy in clinical answers was equal between UpToDate (average 1.35 out of 2) and DynaMed (average 1.36 out of 2). However, time to answer was 2.5 minutes faster in UpToDate compared to DynaMed. Participants were also more confident and satisfied with their answers in UpToDate compared to DynaMed. Conclusions: Despite a preference for UpToDate and a higher confidence in responses, the accuracy of clinical answers in UpToDate was equal to those in DynaMed. Previous exposure to UpToDate likely played a major role in participants' preferences. More research in this area is recommended.
关键词：enpoint of care tools;UpToDate;DynaMed