The yield and usefulness of PAIN+ and PubMed databases for accessing research evidence on pain management: a randomized crossover trial

Vanitha Arumugam, Joy C MacDermid, Dave Walton, Ruby Grewal, Vanitha Arumugam, Joy C MacDermid, Dave Walton, Ruby Grewal

Abstract

Introduction: PAIN+ and PubMed are two electronic databases with two different mechanisms of evidence retrieval. PubMed is used to "Pull" evidence where clinicians can enter search terms to find answers while PAIN+ is a newly developed evidence repository where along with "Pull" service there is a "Push" service that alerts users about new research and the associated quality ratings, based on the individual preferences for content and altering criteria.

Purpose: The primary purpose of the study was to compare yield and usefulness of PubMed and PAIN+ in retrieving evidence to address clinical research questions on pain management. The secondary purpose of the study was to identify what search terms and methods were used by clinicians to target pain research.

Study design: Two-phase double blinded randomized crossover trial.

Methods: Clinicians (n = 76) who were exposed to PAIN+ for at least 1 year took part in this study. Participants were required to search for evidence 2 clinical question scenarios independently. The first clinical question was provided to all participants and thus, was multi-disciplinary. Participants were randomly assigned to search for evidence on their clinical question using either PAIN+ or PubMed through the electronic interface. Upon completion of the search with one search engine, they were crossed over to the other search engine. A similar process was done for a second scenario that was discipline-specific. The yield was calculated using number of retrieved articles presented to participants and usefulness was evaluated using a series of Likert scale questions embedded in the testing.

Results: Multidisciplinary scenario: Overall, the participants had an overall one-page yield of 715 articles for PAIN+ and 1135 articles for PubMed. The topmost article retrieved by PAIN+ was rated as more useful (p = 0.001). While, the topmost article retrieved by PubMed was rated as consistent with current clinical practice (p = 0.02). PubMed (48%) was preferred over PAIN+ (39%) to perform multidisciplinary search (p = 0.02). Discipline specific scenario: The participants had an overall one-page yield of 1046 articles for PAIN+ and 1398 articles for PubMed. The topmost article retrieved by PAIN+ was rated as more useful (p = 0.001) and consistent with current clinical practice (p = 0.02) than the articles retrieved by PubMed. PAIN+ (52%) was preferred over PubMed (29%) to perform discipline specific search.

Conclusion: Clinicians from different disciplines find both PAIN+ and PubMed useful for retrieving research studies to address clinical questions about pain management. Greater preferences and perceived usefulness of the top 3 retrieved papers was observed for PAIN+, but other dimensions of usefulness did not consistently favor either search engine.

Trial registration: Registered with ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01348802 , Date: May 5, 2011.

Keywords: Abstract coding; Descriptive classification; PAIN+; Perceived usefulness; Preference; PubMed.

Conflict of interest statement

There is no competing interests to declare.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Clinical questions presented to clinicians in the study
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Crossover study design
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Word cloud depicting the search terms used for searches by the participants of the study for multidiscipline specific query
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Word cloud depicting the search terms used for searches by the participants of the study for discipline specific query

References

    1. Gatchel RJ, McGeary DD, McGeary CA, Lippe B. Interdisciplinary chronic pain management: past, present, and future. Am Psychol. 2014;69(2):119–130. doi: 10.1037/a0035514.
    1. Sackett DL, Rosenberg WMC. The need for evidence-based medicine. J R Soc Med. 1995;88(11):620–624.
    1. Sackett DL. Evidence-based medicine: how to practice and teach EBM: 2nd ed. Edinburgh. New York: Churchill Livingstone; 2000.
    1. Eizenberg MM. Implementation of evidence-based nursing practice: nurses' personal and professional factors? J Adv Nurs. 2011;66(1):33–42. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2010.05488.x.
    1. Solomons NM, Spross JA. Evidence-based practice barriers and facilitators from a continuous quality improvement perspective: an integrative review. J Nurs Manage. 2011;19(1):109–120. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2834.2010.01144.x.
    1. Khammarnia M, Mohammadi MH, Amani Z, Rezaeian S, Setoodehzadeh F. Barriers to implementation of evidence based practice in Zahedan Teaching Hospitals, Iran, 2014. Nurs Res Pract. 2015;2015(Article ID 357140):1–5.
    1. US National Library of Medicine: National Library of Medicine (US) Key MEDLINE Indicators. 2014 [].
    1. Anders ME, Evans DP. Comparison of PubMed and Google scholar literature searches. Respir Care. 2010;55(5):578–583.
    1. Falagas ME, Pitsouni EI, Malietzis GA, Pappas G. Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, web of science, and Google scholar: strengths and weaknesses. FASEB J. 2008;22(2):338–342. doi: 10.1096/fj.07-9492LSF.
    1. Freeman MK, Lauderdale SA, Kendrach MG, Woolley TW. Google scholar versus PubMed in locating primary literature to answer drug-related questions. Ann Pharmacother. 2009;43(3):478–484. doi: 10.1345/aph.1L223.
    1. Nourbakhsh E, Nugent R, Wang H, Cevik C, Nugent K. Medical literature searches: a comparison of PubMed and Google scholar. Health Inf Libr J. 2012;29(3):214–222. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-1842.2012.00992.x.
    1. Shariff SZ, Bejaimal SA, Sontrop JM, Iansavichus AV, Haynes RB, Weir MA, Garg AX. Retrieving clinical evidence: a comparison of PubMed and Google scholar for quick clinical searches. J Med Internet Res. 2013;15(8):e164. doi: 10.2196/jmir.2624.
    1. Shultz M. Comparing test searches in PubMed and Google scholar. J Med Libr Assoc. 2007;95(4):442–445. doi: 10.3163/1536-5050.95.4.442.
    1. Agoritsas T, Merglen A, Courvoisier DS, Combescure C, Garin N, Perrier A, Perneger TV. Sensitivity and predictive value of 15 PubMed search strategies to answer clinical questions rated against full systematic reviews. J Med Internet Res. 2012;14(3):e85. doi: 10.2196/jmir.2021.
    1. Health Information Research Unit, HIRU, McMaster University: Pain PLUS (Premium LiteratUre Service). . Accessed 9 June 2020.
    1. Li J, Lu Z. Developing topic-specific search filters for PubMed with click-through data. Methods Inf Med. 2013;52(5):395–402. doi: 10.3414/ME12-01-0054.
    1. Shaikh N, Badgett RG, Pi M, Wilczynski NL, McKibbon KA, Ketchum AM, Haynes RB. Development and validation of filters for the retrieval of studies of clinical examination from Medline. J Med Internet Res. 2011;13(4):e82. doi: 10.2196/jmir.1826.
    1. Shariff SZ, Sontrop JM, Haynes RB, Iansavichus AV, McKibbon KA, Wilczynski NL, Weir MA, Speechley MR, Thind A, Garg AX. Impact of PubMed search filters on the retrieval of evidence by physicians. CMAJ. 2012;184(3):E184–E190. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.101661.
    1. van de Glind EM, van Munster BC, Spijker R, Scholten RJ, Hooft L. Search filters to identify geriatric medicine in Medline. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2012;19(3):468–472. doi: 10.1136/amiajnl-2011-000319.
    1. Kastner M, Wilczynski N, McKibbon K, Garg A, Haynes R. Diagnostic test systematic reviews: bibliographic search filters ("clinical queries") for diagnostic accuracy studies perform well. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62(9):974–981. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.11.006.
    1. Lokker C, Haynes RB, Wilczynski NL, McKibbon KA, Walter SD. Retrieval of diagnostic and treatment studies for clinical use through PubMed and PubMed's clinical queries filters. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2011;18(5):652–659. doi: 10.1136/amiajnl-2011-000233.
    1. Wilczynski NL, McKibbon KA, Walter SD, Garg AX, Haynes RB. MEDLINE clinical queries are robust when searching in recent publishing years. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2013;20(2):363–368. doi: 10.1136/amiajnl-2012-001075.
    1. Leeflang MM, Scholten RJ, Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB, Bossuyt PM. Use of methodological search filters to identify diagnostic accuracy studies can lead to the omission of relevant studies. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006;59(3):234–240. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.07.014.
    1. Gilman IP, Thomas JC, Winder MC. Literature Reviews. In: Thomas JC, Hersen M, editors. Understanding Research in Clinical and Counseling Psychology. 2. New York: Taylor & Francis; 2011. pp. 269–292.
    1. Meats E, Brassey J, Heneghan C, Glasziou P. Using the turning research into practice (TRIP) database: how do clinicians really search? J Med Libr Assoc. 2006;95(2):156–163. doi: 10.3163/1536-5050.95.2.156.
    1. van den Beuken-van Everdingen MH, de Rijke JM, Kessels AG, Schouten HC, van Kleef M, Patijn J. High prevalence of pain in patients with cancer in a large population-based study in the Netherlands. Pain. 2007;132(3):312–320. doi: 10.1016/j.pain.2007.08.022.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorer og samarbeidspartnere

Medisinsk tilstand

Legemiddelintervensjoner

3
Abonnere