Zebras and Horses: Can the Medical Literature be Used to Anwer Clinical Questions

1999 ◽  
pp. 75-76
Author(s):  
Richard Nollan
Keyword(s):  
Medical Literature ◽  
Clinical Questions

PaperChase: Computerized Bibliographic Retrieval to Answer Clinical Questions

1983 ◽  
Vol 22 (04) ◽  
pp. 183-188
Author(s):  
G. L. Horowitz ◽  
J. D. Jackson ◽  
H. L. Bleich
Keyword(s):  
Retrieval System ◽  
Medical Literature ◽  
Common Reason ◽  
Rapid Review ◽  
First Year ◽  
Bibliographic Retrieval ◽  
Clinical Questions ◽  
Medical Importance ◽  
Previous Training

PaperChase is a computerized bibliographic retrieval system that permits users without previous training to search the medical literature themselves at any time of the day or night. The database for PaperChase consists of approximately 425,000 references from 258 journals dating back eight years—nearly all the references shelved in the library of our hospital. In its first year of deployment, 1,032 users conducted 8,459 searches, during which they displayed 399,821 references and selected 97,869 of them for printing.The most common reason for using PaperChase is to answer a question of medical importance. As the results of the search are displayed, the titles of the retrieved references flash by; often one or more of them contain a declarative medical statement that answers the question of interest. To facilitate rapid review of these medical statements, we provided a new means to display references—just the titles, but four at a time. Examples are given which illustrate how users of PaperChase can find what they are looking for without consulting bound volumes.

scholarly journals Searching the medical literature for the best evidence to solve clinical questions

1998 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 377-383 ◽  
Author(s):  
D.L. Hunt ◽  
R.B. Haynes ◽  
G.P. Browman
Keyword(s):  
Medical Literature ◽  
Clinical Questions

PaperChase: Computerized Bibliographic Retrieval to Answer Clinical Questions

1983 ◽  
Vol 22 (04) ◽  
pp. 183-188 ◽  
Author(s):  
G. L. Horowitz ◽  
J. D. Jackson ◽  
H. L. Bleich
Keyword(s):  
Retrieval System ◽  
Medical Literature ◽  
Common Reason ◽  
Rapid Review ◽  
First Year ◽  
Bibliographic Retrieval ◽  
Clinical Questions ◽  
Medical Importance ◽  
Previous Training

PaperChase is a computerized bibliographic retrieval system that permits users without previous training to search the medical literature themselves at any time of the day or night. The database for PaperChase consists of approximately 425,000 references from 258 journals dating back eight years—nearly all the references shelved in the library of our hospital. In its first year of deployment, 1,032 users conducted 8,459 searches, during which they displayed 399,821 references and selected 97,869 of them for printing. The most common reason for using PaperChase is to answer a question of medical importance. As the results of the search are displayed, the titles of the retrieved references flash by; often one or more of them contain a declarative medical statement that answers the question of interest. To facilitate rapid review of these medical statements, we provided a new means to display references—just the titles, but four at a time. Examples are given which illustrate how users of PaperChase can find what they are looking for without consulting bound volumes.

scholarly journals Orthopaedic Surgical Content Associated with Resources for Clinical Evidence

2014 ◽  
Vol 34 (1) ◽  
pp. 17
Author(s):  
Sarah L Turvey ◽  
Nasir Hussain ◽  
Laura Banfield ◽  
Mohit Bhandari
Keyword(s):  
Evidence Based Medicine ◽  
Clinical Evidence ◽  
Medical Literature ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Surgical Interventions ◽  
Surgical Practice ◽  
Large Scope ◽  
Clinical Questions ◽  
Based Medicine ◽  
Database Content

Introduction: As evidence-based medicine is increasingly being adopted in medical and surgical practice, effective processing and interpretation of medical literature is imperative. Databases presenting the contents of medical literature have been developed; however, their efficacy merits investigation. The objective of this study was to quantify surgical and orthopaedic content within five evidence-based medicine resources: DynaMed, Clinical Evidence, UpToDate, PIER, and First Consult. Methods: We abstracted surgical and orthopaedic content from UpToDate, DynaMed, PIER, First Consult, and Clinical Evidence. We defined surgical content as that which involved surgical interventions. We classified surgical content by specialty and, for orthopaedics, by subspecialty. The amount of surgical content, as measured by the number of relevant reviews, was compared with the total number of reviews in each database. Likewise, the amount of orthopaedic content, as measured by the number of relevant reviews, was compared with the total number of reviews and the total number of surgical reviews in each database. Results: Across all databases containing a total of 13268 reviews, we identified an average of 18% surgical content. Specifically, First Consult and PIER contained 28% surgical content as a percentage of the total database content. DynaMed contained 14% and Clinical Evidence 11%, whereas UpToDate contained only 9.5% surgical content. Overall, general surgery, pediatrics, and oncology were the most common specialty areas in all databases. Discussion: Our findings suggest that the limited surgical content within these large scope resources poses difficulties for physicians and surgeons seeking answers to complex clinical questions, specifically within the field of orthopaedics. This study therefore demonstrates the potential need for, and benefit of, surgery-specific or even specialty-specific tools.

Nominate Clinical Questions for Systematic Reviews

ASHA Leader ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 60-60
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Clinical Questions

Nominate Clinical Questions for Systematic Reviews

A Trial Consultant's View of the Medical Expert Witness

2013 ◽  
Vol 18 (4) ◽  
pp. 7-10
Author(s):  
Deborah Rutt ◽  
Kathyrn Mueller
Keyword(s):  
Nonverbal Communication ◽  
Expert Testimony ◽  
Medical Literature ◽  
Expert Witness ◽  
Personal Injury ◽  
Expert Witnesses ◽  
Good Teacher ◽  
Medical Expert ◽  
Medical Terms ◽  
Medical Issues

Abstract Physicians who use the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides) often serve as medical expert witnesses. In workers’ compensation cases, the expert may appear in front of a judge or hearing officer; in personal injury and other cases, the physician may testify by deposition or in court before a judge with or without a jury. This article discusses why medical expert witnesses are needed, what they do, and how they can help or hurt a case. Whether it is rendered by a judge or jury, the final opinions rely on laypersons’ understanding of medical issues. Medical expert testimony extracts from the intricacies of the medical literature those facts the trier of fact needs to understand; highlights the medical facts pertinent to decision making; and explains both these in terms that are understandable to a layperson, thereby enabling the judge or jury to render well-informed opinions. For expert witnesses, communication is everything, including nonverbal communication that critically determines if judges and, particularly, jurors believe a witness. To these ends, an expert medical witnesses should know the case; be objective; be a good teacher; state opinions clearly; testify with appropriate professional demeanor; communicate well, both verbally and nonverbally; in verbal communications, explain medical terms and procedures so listeners can understand the case; and avoid medical jargon, finding fault or blaming, becoming argumentative, or appearing arrogant.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document