| Abstrakt: |
The availability of medical information is now spread over several frequently used media. This includes printed journals, on-line journals, text books, conferences, DVD’s, audio tapes / CD’s, formal and informal discussions (with friends and colleagues), and sometimes newspaper articles and TV presentations. The practice of evidence-based medicine encourages medical practitioners to utilise a selection of these resources, assimilate the information, and condense it into clinical pathways or protocols that can be applied consistently to patient management. The Pub Med database alone has 6.6 million references including 0.7 million reviews Limits “Human / English”]. “Where is the evidence?” is asked by ourselves, administrators, clinicians, allied medical staff, and occasionally by patients. It is also asked by lawyers and insurance clerks. Individual practitioners try to answer this question when asked. The frequent answer is “Where did I put that article?” Purpose of the Study: Can exposure to a novel idea increase the frequency of medical searches to answer clinical questions? Are the number of references stored increased? Is reference retrieval enhanced? Method: A questionnaire was used to assess the historical frequency of medical searches, and the method used to store and retrieve references. After exposure to the program, the number of references stored (to the database) was calculated, and the frequency of searches made by each user (and reference retrieval). Results: In the early assessment phase users had access to the program for an average of 16 days. This resulted in an average of 8 references stored per user. However, 50% of users were responsible for 91% of the references stored. Conclusions: It is possible that a novel idea which helps to minimise the effort (and time) taken by individuals to do searches, which also stores and retrieves references, may help practitioners seeking to use an “evidence based medicine” approach. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
