Article

Systematic reviews and original articles differ in relevance, novelty, and use in an evidence-based service for physicians: PLUS project.

Health Information Research Unit, Department of Clinical Epidemiology & Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology (Impact Factor: 5.48). 05/2008; 61(5):449-54. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.10.016
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To describe the ratings from physicians, and use by physicians, of high quality, clinically pertinent original articles and systematic reviews from over 110 clinical journals and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSRs).
Prospective observational study. Data were collected via an online clinical rating system of relevance and newsworthiness for quality-filtered clinical articles and via an online delivery service for practicing physicians, during the course of the McMaster Premium LiteratUre Service Trial. Clinical ratings of articles in the MORE system by over 1,900 physicians were compared and the usage rates over 13 months of these articles by physicians, who were not raters, were examined.
Systematic reviews were rated significantly higher than original articles for relevance (P<0.001), but significantly lower for newsworthiness (P<0.001). Reviews published in the CDSR had significantly lower ratings for both relevance (P<0.001) and newsworthiness (P<0.001) than reviews published in other journals. Participants accessed reviews more often than original articles (P<0.001), and accessed reviews from journals more often than from CDSR (P<0.001).
Physician ratings and the use of high-quality original articles and systematic reviews differed, generally favoring systematic reviews over original articles. Reviews published in journals were rated higher and accessed more often than Cochrane reviews.

0 Followers
 · 
76 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Paediatric cochlear implantation (PCI) requires complex case evaluation and counselling, surgical intervention, and habilitation. Outcomes vary and many cases have sub-optimal outcomes as a result of a broad spectrum of adverse influences. To systematically review the literature to identify research papers that indicate a demonstrated outcome or prognostic factor in paediatric CI, the overall aim being to develop a prognostic index for clinical use. Six main literature domains were assessed: medical/surgical; audiology; psychology; speech/language; education; and family. Search strategies were applied to appropriate databases and journals. A strict inclusion criterion was utilized. A critical appraisal tool was administered to evaluate the final eligible citations. The review identified 92 citations, of which 38 were eligible. Heterogeneity in study design prevented a quantitative meta-analysis of the data. Discussion While there are a large range of factors that impact PCI outcomes, well-constructed case control studies are limited in number and scope and relatively few demonstrated significant prognostic factors. Only four factors were identified as consistently influencing PCI outcomes: age at implantation, Connexin 26, inner ear malformations, and meningitis. Evaluation of relevant adverse prognostic factors in paediatric CI remains a largely unreported field. Better identification of these factors is required for improving vital pre-operative counselling and resultant surgical expectations and outcomes.
    Cochlear implants international 05/2011; 12(2):67-93. DOI:10.1179/146701010X486417
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Various biocomputing models for molecular electronic devices are examined. They are the feedforward connectionist network (artificial neural network), the enzymatic neuron, and a hybrid model that attempts to capture the programmability of silicon electronic devices and the adaptability of molecular electronic devices. Greater interaction between researchers in molecular electronics and in biocomputing is urged
  • Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 06/2008; 61(5):419-21. DOI:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.11.022 · 5.48 Impact Factor