Analysis of queries sent to PubMed at the point of care: Observation of search behaviour in a medical teaching hospital

Contains fulltext : 69801.pdf ( ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND: The use of PubMed to answer daily medical care questions is limited because it is challenging to retrieve a small set of relevant articles and time is restricted. Knowing what aspects of queries are likely to retrieve relevant articles can increase the effectiveness of PubMed searches. The objectives of our study were to identify queries that are likely to retrieve relevant articles by relating PubMed search techniques and tools to the number of articles retrieved and the selection of articles for further reading. METHODS: This was a prospective observational study of queries regarding patient-related problems sent to PubMed by residents and internists in internal medicine working in an Academic Medical Centre. We analyzed queries, search results, query tools (Mesh, Limits, wildcards, operators), selection of abstract and full-text for further reading, using a portal that mimics PubMed. RESULTS: PubMed was used to solve 1121 patient-related problems, resulting in 3205 distinct queries. Abstracts were viewed in 999 (31%) of these queries, and in 126 (39%) of 321 queries using query tools. The average term count per query was 2.5. Abstracts were selected in more than 40% of queries using four or five terms, increasing to 63% if the use of four or five terms yielded 2-161 articles. CONCLUSION: Queries sent to PubMed by physicians at our hospital during daily medical care contain fewer than three terms. Queries using four to five terms, retrieving less than 161 article titles, are most likely to result in abstract viewing. PubMed search tools are used infrequently by our population and are less effective than the use of four or five terms. Methods to facilitate the formulation of precise queries, using more relevant terms, should be the focus of education and research

The diagnostic value of digital rectal examination in primary care screening for prostate cancer: A meta-analysis

Objective. This systematic review examines the diagnostic value of the digital rectal examination (DRE) for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. Method. Only studies relating to unselected populations and using either biopsy or surgery as the reference standard were included. The methodological quality of the studies was used in an attempt to explain differences between studies. Results. Fourteen studies were eligible for selection, of which five complied with the predetermined list of 'good-quality' requirements. Between study heterogeneity was high, even within the group of high-quality studies, and could not be explained by the registered indicators of methodological quality. Conclusions. In this setting, the DRE appears to be a test with a high specificity and negative predictive value, but a low sensitivity and positive predictive value. Neither a positive nor a negative test result is sufficient to enable conclusions without further confirmation

Comparing patient characteristics, type of intervention, control, and outcome (PICO) queries with unguided searching: a randomized controlled crossover trial

Contains fulltext : 110627.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND: Translating a question into a query using patient characteristics, type of intervention, control, and outcome (PICO) should help answer therapeutic questions in PubMed searches. The authors performed a randomized crossover trial to determine whether the PICO format was useful for quick searches of PubMed. METHODS: Twenty-two residents and specialists working at the Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre were trained in formulating PICO queries and then presented with a randomized set of questions derived from Cochrane reviews. They were asked to use the best query possible in a five-minute search, using standard and PICO queries. Recall and precision were calculated for both standard and PICO queries. RESULTS: Twenty-two physicians created 434 queries using both techniques. Average precision was 4.02% for standard queries and 3.44% for PICO queries (difference nonsignificant, t(21) = -0.56, P = 0.58). Average recall was 12.27% for standard queries and 13.62% for PICO queries (difference nonsignificant, t(21) = -0.76, P = 0.46). CONCLUSIONS: PICO queries do not result in better recall or precision in time-limited searches. Standard queries containing enough detail are sufficient for quick searches

Evaluation of PubMed filters used for evidence-based searching: validation using relative recall

Contains fulltext : 80793.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)OBJECTIVES: The research sought to determine the value of PubMed filters and combinations of filters in literature selected for systematic reviews on therapy-related clinical questions. METHODS: References to 35,281 included and 48,514 excluded articles were extracted from 2,629 reviews published prior to January 2008 in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and sent to PubMed with and without filters. Sensitivity, specificity, and precision were calculated from the percentages of unfiltered and filtered references retrieved for each review and averaged over all reviews. RESULTS: Sensitivity of the Sensitive Clinical Queries filter was reasonable (92.7%, 92.1-93.3); specificity (16.1%, 15.1-17.1) and precision were low (49.5%, 48.5-50.5). The Specific Clinical Queries and the Single Term Medline Specific filters performed comparably (sensitivity, 78.2%, 77.2-79.2 vs. 78.0%; 77.0-79.0; specificity, 52.0%, 50.8-53.2 vs. 52.3%, 51.1-53.5; precision, 60.4%, 59.4-61.4 vs. 60.6%, 59.6-61.6). Combining the Abridged Index Medicus (AIM) and Single Term Medline Specific (65.2%, 63.8-66.6), Two Terms Medline Optimized (64.2%, 62.8-65.6), or Specific Clinical Queries filters (65.0%, 63.6-66.4) yielded the highest precision. CONCLUSIONS: Sensitive and Specific Clinical Queries filters used to answer questions about therapy will result in a list of clinical trials but cannot be expected to identify only methodologically sound trials. The Specific Clinical Queries filters are not suitable for questions regarding therapy that cannot be answered with randomized controlled trials. Combining AIM with specific PubMed filters yields the highest precision in the Cochrane dataset

Answers to Questions Posed During Daily Patient Care Are More Likely to Be Answered by UpToDate Than PubMed

Contains fulltext : 69818.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND: UpToDate and PubMed are popular sources for medical information. Data regarding the efficiency of PubMed and UpToDate in daily medical care are lacking. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this observational study was to describe the percentage of answers retrieved by these information sources, comparing search results with regard to different medical topics and the time spent searching for an answer. METHODS: A total of 40 residents and 30 internists in internal medicine working in an academic medical center searched PubMed and UpToDate using an observation portal during daily medical care. The information source used for searching and the time needed to find an answer to the question were recorded by the portal. Information was provided by searchers regarding the topic of the question, the situation that triggered the question, and whether an answer was found. RESULTS: We analyzed 1305 patient-related questions sent to PubMed and/or UpToDate between October 1, 2005 and March 31, 2007 using our portal. A complete answer was found in 594/1125 (53%) questions sent to PubMed or UpToDate. A partial or full answer was obtained in 729/883 (83%) UpToDate searches and 152/242 (63%) PubMed searches (P < .001). UpToDate answered more questions than PubMed on all major medical topics, but a significant difference was detected only when the question was related to etiology (P < .001) or therapy (P = .002). Time to answer was 241 seconds (SD 24) for UpToDate and 291 seconds (SD 7) for PubMed. CONCLUSIONS: Specialists and residents in internal medicine generally use less than 5 minutes to answer patient-related questions in daily care. More questions are answered using UpToDate than PubMed on all major medical topics

Multiple Compression Syndromes of the Same Upper Extremity: Prevalence, Risk Factors, and Treatment Outcomes of Concomitant Treatment

Purpose: Multiple nerve compression syndromes can co-occur. Little is known about this coexistence, especially about risk factors and surgical outcomes. Therefore, this study aimed to describe the prevalence of multiple nerve compression syndromes in the same arm in a surgical cohort and determine risk factors. Additionally, the surgical outcomes of concomitant treatment were studied. Methods: The prevalence of surgically treated multiple nerve compression syndromes within one year was assessed using a review of patients’ electronic records. Patient characteristics, comorbidities, and baseline scores of the Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire were considered as risk factors. To determine the treatment outcomes of simultaneous treatment, patients who underwent concomitant carpal tunnel release (CTR) and cubital tunnel release (CubTR) were selected. The treatment outcomes were Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire scores at intake and at 3 and 6 months after the surgery, satisfaction 6 months after the surgery, and return to work within the first year. Results: A total of 7,867 patients underwent at least one nerve decompression between 2011 and 2021. Of these patients, 2.9% underwent multiple decompressions for the same upper extremity within one year. The risk factors for this were severe symptoms, younger age, and smoking. Furthermore, the treatment outcomes of concomitant CTR and CubTR did not differ from those of CubTR alone. The median time to return to work after concomitant treatment was 6 weeks. Patients who underwent CTR or CubTR alone returned to work after 4 weeks. Conclusions: Approximately 3% of the patients who underwent surgical treatment for nerve compression syndrome underwent decompression for another nerve within 1 year. Patients who report severe symptoms at intake, are younger, or smoke are at a greater risk. Patients with carpal and cubital tunnel syndrome may benefit from simultaneous decompression. The time to return to work may be less than if they underwent decompressions in separate procedures, whereas their surgical outcomes are comparable with those of CubTR alone. Type of study/level of evidence: Therapeutic IV