Answering family physicians' clinical questions using electronic medical databases - Original Research

Journal of Family Practice, Nov, 2001 by Brian S. Alper, James J. Stevermer, David S. White, Bernard G. Ewigman

Our study presents a static evaluation of a dynamic field. Over time, answers may be lost because of lack of maintenance of resource links or may be gained by addition of new materials. Our use of questions gathered several years ago may not accurately reflect the ability of databases to answer current questions, which may be more likely to reflect new tests and treatments.

Many of the databases were designed for purposes other than meeting clinical information needs at the point of care. Performance in this study does not reflect the capacity of these databases to address their stated purposes. For example, the Translating Research Into Practice (TRIP) database is an excellent resource for searches of a large collection of evidence-based resources. These resources are generally limited to summaries of studies with the highest methodologic quality. The TRIP database did not perform well in our study partly because most of our test questions (consistent with questions in clinical practice) cannot currently be answered using studies of the highest methodologic quality. Another example is Medical Matrix, which provides a search engine and annotated summaries for exploring the entire medical Internet and not just clinical reference information.

We did not study the costs involved in using the databases we evaluated, and these costs may have changed since our study was conducted. Most of the databases we included were free to use at the time of the study and at the time of this report. The 3 collections of textbooks required access fees. STAT!Ref, which scored the highest in our study, did so because we used the complete collection available to us through our institutional library. This collection would cost an individual $2189 annually at the time of our study. A starter library was available for $199 annually and would only answer 40% of the questions.

Context

Family physicians and other primary care providers treat patients who have a wide variety of syndromes and symptoms. Because of the scope and breadth of primary care, it is nearly impossible for a clinician to keep up with rapidly changing medical information. (10)

Connelly and colleagues (11) surveyed 126 family physicians and found they used the Physicians' Desk Reference and colleagues much more often than Index Medicus or computer-based bibliographic retrieval systems. Research literature was used infrequently and rated among the lowest in terms of credibility, availability, searchability, understandability, and applicability. Physicians preferred sources that had low cost and were relevant to specific patient problems over sources that had higher quality.

CONCLUSIONS

Current databases can answer a considerable proportion of clinical questions but have not reached their potential for efficiency. It is our hope that as electronic medical databases mature, they will be able to bridge this gap and bring the research literature to the point of care in useful and practical ways. This study provides a snapshot of how far we have come and how far we need to go to meet these needs.