UpToDate versus DynaMed: a cross-sectional study comparing the speed and accuracy of two point-of-care information tools
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 fam...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
University Library System, University of Pittsburgh
2021-10-01
|
| Series: | Journal of the Medical Library Association |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://jmla.pitt.edu/ojs/jmla/article/view/1176 |
| _version_ | 1818902275370778624 |
|---|---|
| author | Glyneva Bradley-Ridout Erica Nekolaichuk Trevor Jamieson Claire Jones Natalie Morson Rita Chuang Elena Springall |
| author_facet | Glyneva Bradley-Ridout Erica Nekolaichuk Trevor Jamieson Claire Jones Natalie Morson Rita Chuang Elena Springall |
| author_sort | Glyneva Bradley-Ridout |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | 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. |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-19T20:33:04Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-a7414bbac8ee4652aa7a2dbbd0a00060 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1536-5050 1558-9439 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-19T20:33:04Z |
| publishDate | 2021-10-01 |
| publisher | University Library System, University of Pittsburgh |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Journal of the Medical Library Association |
| spelling | doaj.art-a7414bbac8ee4652aa7a2dbbd0a000602022-12-21T20:06:38ZengUniversity Library System, University of PittsburghJournal of the Medical Library Association1536-50501558-94392021-10-01109310.5195/jmla.2021.1176602UpToDate versus DynaMed: a cross-sectional study comparing the speed and accuracy of two point-of-care information toolsGlyneva Bradley-Ridout0Erica Nekolaichuk1Trevor Jamieson2Claire Jones3Natalie Morson4Rita Chuang5Elena Springall6University of TorontoUniversity of TorontoUniversity of TorontoUniversity of TorontoUniversity of TorontoUniversity of TorontoUniversity of TorontoObjective: 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.http://jmla.pitt.edu/ojs/jmla/article/view/1176point of care toolsuptodatedynamed |
| spellingShingle | Glyneva Bradley-Ridout Erica Nekolaichuk Trevor Jamieson Claire Jones Natalie Morson Rita Chuang Elena Springall UpToDate versus DynaMed: a cross-sectional study comparing the speed and accuracy of two point-of-care information tools Journal of the Medical Library Association point of care tools uptodate dynamed |
| title | UpToDate versus DynaMed: a cross-sectional study comparing the speed and accuracy of two point-of-care information tools |
| title_full | UpToDate versus DynaMed: a cross-sectional study comparing the speed and accuracy of two point-of-care information tools |
| title_fullStr | UpToDate versus DynaMed: a cross-sectional study comparing the speed and accuracy of two point-of-care information tools |
| title_full_unstemmed | UpToDate versus DynaMed: a cross-sectional study comparing the speed and accuracy of two point-of-care information tools |
| title_short | UpToDate versus DynaMed: a cross-sectional study comparing the speed and accuracy of two point-of-care information tools |
| title_sort | uptodate versus dynamed a cross sectional study comparing the speed and accuracy of two point of care information tools |
| topic | point of care tools uptodate dynamed |
| url | http://jmla.pitt.edu/ojs/jmla/article/view/1176 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT glynevabradleyridout uptodateversusdynamedacrosssectionalstudycomparingthespeedandaccuracyoftwopointofcareinformationtools AT ericanekolaichuk uptodateversusdynamedacrosssectionalstudycomparingthespeedandaccuracyoftwopointofcareinformationtools AT trevorjamieson uptodateversusdynamedacrosssectionalstudycomparingthespeedandaccuracyoftwopointofcareinformationtools AT clairejones uptodateversusdynamedacrosssectionalstudycomparingthespeedandaccuracyoftwopointofcareinformationtools AT nataliemorson uptodateversusdynamedacrosssectionalstudycomparingthespeedandaccuracyoftwopointofcareinformationtools AT ritachuang uptodateversusdynamedacrosssectionalstudycomparingthespeedandaccuracyoftwopointofcareinformationtools AT elenaspringall uptodateversusdynamedacrosssectionalstudycomparingthespeedandaccuracyoftwopointofcareinformationtools |