A comparison of the accuracy of clinical decisions based on full-text articles and on journal abstracts alone: a study among residents in a tertiary care hospital

Alvin Marcelo, Alex Gavino, Iris Thiele Isip-Tan, Leilanie Apostol-Nicodemus, Faith Joan Mesa-Gaerlan, Paul Nimrod Firaza, John Francis Faustorilla Jr, Fiona M Callaghan, Paul Fontelo, Alvin Marcelo, Alex Gavino, Iris Thiele Isip-Tan, Leilanie Apostol-Nicodemus, Faith Joan Mesa-Gaerlan, Paul Nimrod Firaza, John Francis Faustorilla Jr, Fiona M Callaghan, Paul Fontelo

Abstract

Background: Many clinicians depend solely on journal abstracts to guide clinical decisions.

Objectives: This study aims to determine if there are differences in the accuracy of responses to simulated cases between resident physicians provided with an abstract only and those with full-text articles. It also attempts to describe their information-seeking behaviour.

Methods: Seventy-seven resident physicians from four specialty departments of a tertiary care hospital completed a paper-based questionnaire with clinical simulation cases, then randomly assigned to two intervention groups-access to abstracts-only and access to both abstracts and full-text. While having access to medical literature, they completed an online version of the same questionnaire.

Findings: The average improvement across departments was not significantly different between the abstracts-only group and the full-text group (p=0.44), but when accounting for an interaction between intervention and department, the effect was significant (p=0.049) with improvement greater with full-text in the surgery department. Overall, the accuracy of responses was greater after the provision of either abstracts-only or full-text (p<0.0001). Although some residents indicated that 'accumulated knowledge' was sufficient to respond to the patient management questions, in most instances (83% of cases) they still sought medical literature.

Conclusions: Our findings support studies that doctors will use evidence when convenient and current evidence improved clinical decisions. The accuracy of decisions improved after the provision of evidence. Clinical decisions guided by full-text articles were more accurate than those guided by abstracts alone, but the results seem to be driven by a significant difference in one department.

References

    1. Pauker SG, Gorry GA, Kassirer JP, et al. Towards the simulation of clinical cognition: taking a present illness by computer. Am J Med 1976;60:981–96
    1. Fontelo P. Consensus abstracts for evidence-based medicine. Evid Based Med 2011;16:36–8
    1. Haynes RB, McKibbon KA, Walker CJ, et al. Online access to MEDLINE in clinical settings. A study of use and usefulness. Ann Intern Med 1990;112:78–84
    1. Saint S, Christakis DA, Saha S, et al. Journal reading habits of internists. J Gen Intern Med 2000;15:881–4
    1. Barry HC, Ebell MH, Shaughnessy AF, et al. Family physicians’ use of medical abstracts to guide decision making: style or substance? J Am Board Fam Pract 2001;14:437–42
    1. The PLoS Medicine Editors The impact of open access upon public health. PLoS Med 2006;3:e252.
    1. Editorial. Read MEDLINE abstracts with a pinch of salt. Lancet 2006;368:1394
    1. Berwanger O, Ribeiro RA, Finkelsztejn A, et al. The quality of reporting of trial abstracts is suboptimal: survey of major general medical journals. J Clin Epidemiol 2009;62:387–92
    1. Haynes RB, Ramsden MF, McKibbon KA, et al. Online access to MEDLINE in clinical settings: impact of user fees. Bull Med Libr Assoc 1991;79:377–81
    1. Pitkin RM, Branagan MA. Can the accuracy of abstracts be improved by providing specific instructions? A randomized controlled trial. JAMA 1998;280:267–9
    1. Pitkin RM, Branagan MA, Burmeister LF. Accuracy of data in abstracts of published research articles. JAMA 1999;281:1110–11
    1. Peacock PJ, Peters TJ, Peacock JL. How well do structured abstracts reflect the articles they summarize? Eur Sci Editing 2009;35:3–5
    1. Bernal-Delgado E, Fisher ES. Abstracts in high profile journals often fail to report harm. BMC Med Res Methodol 2008;8:14.
    1. Taddio A, Pain T, Fassos FF, et al. Quality of nonstructured and structured abstracts of original research articles in the British Medical Journal, the Canadian Medical Association Journal and the Journal of the American Medical Association. CMAJ 1994;150:1611–15
    1. Pitkin RM. The importance of the abstract. Obstet Gynecol 1987;70:267.
    1. Ad Hoc Working Group for Critical Appraisal of the Medical Literature A proposal for more informative abstracts of clinical articles. Ann Intern Med 1987;106:598–604
    1. Haynes RB, Mulrow CD, Huth EJ, et al. More informative abstracts revisited. Ann Intern Med 1990;113:69–76
    1. Huth EJ. Structured abstracts for papers reporting clinical trials. Ann Intern Med 1987;106:626–7
    1. MacAuley D. Critical appraisal of medical literature: an aid to rational decision making. Fam Pract 1995;12:98–103
    1. Nakayama T, Hirai N, Yamazaki S, et al. Adoption of structured abstracts by general medical journals and format for a structured abstract. J Med Libr Assoc 2005;93:237–42
    1. Groves T, Godlee F. Innovations in publishing BMJ research. BMJ 2008;337:a3123.
    1. Narine L, Yee DS, Einarson TR, et al. Quality of abstracts of original research articles in CMAJ in 1989. CMAJ 1991;144:449–53
    1. Dupuy A, Khosrotehrani K, Lebbe C, et al. Quality of abstracts in 3 clinical dermatology journals. Arch Dermatol 2003;139:589–93
    1. Hartley J. Current findings from research on structured abstracts. J Med Libr Assoc 2004;92:368–71
    1. The Editors Addressing the limitations of structured abstracts. Ann Intern Med 2004;140:480–1
    1. Winker MA. The need for concrete improvement in abstract quality. JAMA 1999;281:1129–30
    1. Hopewell S, Clarke M, Moher D, et al. CONSORT for reporting randomized controlled trials in journal and conference abstracts: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med 2008;5:e20.
    1. Choudhry NK, Fletcher RH, Soumerai SB. Systematic review: the relationship between clinical experience and quality of health care. Ann Intern Med 2005;142:260–73
    1. Rosner B. Fundamentals of Biostatistics. 5th edn Pacific Grove, CA: Duxbury, 2000
    1. R Development Core Team R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2011. Vienna, Austria. (accessed 7 May 2012).
    1. Diggle P, Heargerty P, Liang K, et al. Analysis of longitudinal data. 2nd edn Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK: 2002
    1. Sackett DL, Rosenberg WM, Gray JA, et al. Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn't. BMJ 1996;312:71–2
    1. McGowan J, Hogg W, Campbell C, et al. Just-in-time information improved decision-making in primary care: a randomized controlled trial. PLoS ONE 2008;3:e3785.
    1. Crowley SD, Owens TA, Schardt CM, et al. A Web-based compendium of clinical questions and medical evidence to educate internal medicine residents. Acad Med 2003;78: 270–4
    1. Westbrook JI, Coiera EW, Gosling AS. Do online information retrieval systems help experienced clinicians answer clinical questions? J Am Med Inform Assoc 2005;12:315–21
    1. Leon SA, Fontelo P. MedlinePlus en Español and Spanish-speakers. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2007;1028.
    1. Sackett DL, Straus SE. Finding and applying evidence during clinical rounds: the ‘evidence cart’. JAMA 1998;280:1336–8

Source: PubMed

Patrocinadores y Colaboradores

Condiciones médicas

Intervenciones de drogas

3
Suscribir