British Medical Journal
Speed of updating online evidence-based point-of-care summaries
Prospective cohort analysis
About the Study
Experts in evidence-based medicine evaluated five point-of-care resources to see how quickly the resources updated new evidence, addressing the importance of incorporating the best available evidence into the clinical workflow and the impact of updates on patient care. The researchers identified 128 systematic reviews that were considered important enough to change clinical practice, and followed the databases every month to determine how long it took for this evidence to show up in the resources promoted for doctors to use. Two months after a systematic review was published, the reviewers checked each database to see if the evidence was included, and then repeated their monitoring every month to measure how long it would take to include the evidence.
At two months, DynaMed already had more than 60% of the reviews being monitored, and this increased to 77% at three months, and 87% at nine months. All of the other databases included less than 50% of the important evidence, even after nine months. Researchers reported that the updating speed of some frequently relied-upon resources was too slow for them to reliably measure.
In addition, DynaMed was shown to be at least 78% faster and as much as 97% faster at including evidence than the other resources in the study, concluding that, “DynaMed has an updating process that markedly led the others.”
BMJ 2011 Sep 23;343:d5856