Comparing PubMed and UpToDate for Clinical Residents
Author Information
Author(s): Sayyah Ensan, Ladan Faghankhani, Masoomeh Javanbakht, Anna Ahmadi, Seyed-Foad Baradaran, Hamid Reza
Primary Institution: Tehran University of Medical Sciences
Hypothesis
Does UpToDate provide better information retrieval and user satisfaction compared to PubMed Clinical Queries for clinical residents?
Conclusion
Using UpToDate leads to a higher proportion of relevant answers retrieved in less time and greater user satisfaction compared to PubMed Clinical Queries.
Supporting Evidence
- 76% of questions were answered using UpToDate compared to 43% using PubMed.
- Median time to answer retrieval was 17 minutes for UpToDate and 29 minutes for PubMed.
- User satisfaction was significantly higher for UpToDate in terms of accuracy and interaction.
Takeaway
When doctors look for answers, using UpToDate helps them find the right information faster and makes them happier than using PubMed.
Methodology
A crossover randomized controlled trial was conducted with 44 clinical residents who used both UpToDate and PubMed Clinical Queries to answer clinical scenarios.
Potential Biases
Participants may have had varying levels of familiarity with the databases, which could influence results.
Limitations
Participants' native language was Persian, which may have affected retrieval times; limited number of questions and clinical categories were included.
Participant Demographics
44 residents, 63% male, 90% in their first year of residency, mean age 32 years.
Statistical Information
P-Value
p<0.001
Confidence Interval
95% CI: 16 to 18 for UpToDate, 95% CI: 26 to 32 for PubMed
Statistical Significance
p<0.001
Digital Object Identifier (DOI)
Want to read the original?
Access the complete publication on the publisher's website