For a system to truly be called evidence-based, the system needs to be consistent and adaptable.
It needs to be unwavering in using valid information and interpretations while minimizing the influences of intentional or unintentional biases. The system also needs to be dynamic, responsive to feedback and seeking change where changes will improve reliability by modifying internal processes, increase usability by adjusting to changing expectations as medical informatics and clinical practice advances, and respond to continually developing ways that bias influence clinical research and guidance.
Topic-based peer review:
DynaMed Plus has a long history of peer review, including hundreds of volunteer reviewers from many disciplines and countries. Over time, we have transitioned to ensuring review by explicitly defined experts and specialists, repeated with an annual review process for topic-based peer review. This supports our topic creation, maintenance and quality process.
Article-based peer review:
DynaMed Plus collaborates with McMaster University and the McMaster Online Rating of Evidence (MORE) system. Over 1,000 MORE raters (practicing physicians from many disciplines and countries) contribute to DynaMed Plus by rating articles according to their relevance for clinical use. Raters can also provide open-ended feedback and rate article summaries on ease of finding, ease of interpretation, and inclusion of relevant information. This supports our evidence-based methodology for systematic literature surveillance.
Customer feedback evaluation and processing:
DynaMed Plus has prominent methods to send comments, which are received directly by DynaMed Plus Editors. In essence, every user is a peer reviewer at any time and requests from users represent the ideal perspective of what information is most useful. Customer feedback is evaluated for specific content change, pattern recognition, and root cause analysis for potential quality improvement activities to improve people, processes and systems.
Continuous quality improvement:
DynaMed Plus employs continuous quality improvement activities ranging from the highly interactive (Kanban-style content flow management) to the systems processing (automated reports for “find-and-fix” errors, copy editing, etc.).
Conflict of interest management:
Most DynaMed Plus team members, including editorial staff, content domain experts, Recommendations Editors, and Deputy Editors are free of commercial conflicts of interests. All team members complete conflict of interest disclosure forms annually. General statements are provided to acknowledge that participating editors and reviewers have declared no financial or other competing interests related to specific topics. When a potential conflict of interest occurs, it is explicitly listed under Special acknowledgements. If there are any competing interests, we make sure other team members confirm the relevance and accuracy of the content.