Developing and using a rubric for evaluating evidence-based medicine point-of-care tools

Instructional Service Librarian, Medical Sciences Library, Texas A&M University, 4462 TAMU College Station, TX 77843-4462, USA.
Journal of the Medical Library Association JMLA (Impact Factor: 0.99). 07/2011; 99(3):247-54. DOI: 10.3163/1536-5050.99.3.012
Source: PubMed


The research sought to establish a rubric for evaluating evidence-based medicine (EBM) point-of-care tools in a health sciences library.
The authors searched the literature for EBM tool evaluations and found that most previous reviews were designed to evaluate the ability of an EBM tool to answer a clinical question. The researchers' goal was to develop and complete rubrics for assessing these tools based on criteria for a general evaluation of tools (reviewing content, search options, quality control, and grading) and criteria for an evaluation of clinical summaries (searching tools for treatments of common diagnoses and evaluating summaries for quality control).
Differences between EBM tools' options, content coverage, and usability were minimal. However, the products' methods for locating and grading evidence varied widely in transparency and process.
As EBM tools are constantly updating and evolving, evaluation of these tools needs to be conducted frequently. Standards for evaluating EBM tools need to be established, with one method being the use of objective rubrics. In addition, EBM tools need to provide more information about authorship, reviewers, methods for evidence collection, and grading system employed.

Download full-text


Available from: Margaret J Foster
  • Source
    • "Clinicians should become familiar with the basic concepts that make an information product a credible source of scientific evidence. Health libraries and local knowledge brokers should endorse and give preference to summaries that are committed to policies to improve editorial and methodological rigor, disclose conflicts of interest282930, and ensure complete and accessible reporting of the content development procedure. Users should be skeptical about point-of-care summaries that do not transparently describe how information is found (search strategy), selected (cumulative or discretionary approach), evaluated (critical appraisal), prioritized (grading of evidence and recommendations), and regularly updated (literature surveillance) to maintain their relevance to practice. "

    Full-text · Article · Jan 2016 · Journal of Medical Internet Research
  • Source
    • "Suggestions for rubric improvement include more open communication about guidelines, methods of evidence collection, and grading systems. [10] "

    Preview · Article · Jun 2015
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Online point-of-care evidence-based information tools are becoming increasingly popular. To discover how doctors actually use one such tool - UpToDate - in clinical practice. An online survey was distributed to doctors at healthcare organisations in the north-west of England which subscribed to UpToDate. Some survey questions asked for quantifiable data (e.g. demographic details), whilst other questions were open-ended and sought examples of clinical scenarios and actual point-of-care use of UpToDate. Open-ended responses were then analysed into emerging themes. The open-ended responses include evidence illustrating a large variety of clinical scenarios in which the use of UpToDate influenced clinical practice. These results show how just one point-of-care tool is used in a variety of ways that benefit the patient, the doctor and the healthcare organisation. Direct quotations reported will provide compelling evidence for librarians to present to senior managers who may be unsure of the value of point-of-care tools in clinical practice.
    No preview · Article · Mar 2013 · Health Information & Libraries Journal
Show more