PDF icon PDF herunterladen
Appl Clin Inform 2022; 13(01): 139-147
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1742216
Research Article

Comparing the Use of DynaMed and UpToDate by Physician Trainees in Clinical Decision-Making: A Randomized Crossover Trial

Sally L. Baxter
1   Health Department of Biomedical Informatics, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, California, United States
2   Division of Ophthalmology Informatics and Data Science, Viterbi Family Department of Ophthalmology, Shiley Eye Institute, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, California, United States
,
Lina Lander
3   Department of Family Medicine, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, California, United States
,
Brian Clay
4   Department of Medicine, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, California, United States
,
John Bell
4   Department of Medicine, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, California, United States
,
Kristen Hansen
3   Department of Family Medicine, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, California, United States
,
Amanda Walker
3   Department of Family Medicine, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, California, United States
,
Ming Tai-Seale
3   Department of Family Medicine, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, California, United States
› Institutsangaben
Funding S.L.B. was supported by the National Institutes of Health/National Library of Medicine (training grant T15LM011271), the NIH Office of the Director (grant DP5OD029610), and an unrestricted departmental grant from Research to Prevent Blindness.
› Weitere Informationen
Auch verfügbar aufeRef
  Lizenzen und Reprints
Preview

Abstract

Background Costs vary substantially among electronic medical knowledge resources used for clinical decision support, warranting periodic assessment of institution-wide adoption.

Objectives To compare two medical knowledge resources, UpToDate and DynaMed Plus, regarding accuracy and time required to answer standardized clinical questions and user experience.

Methods A crossover trial design was used, wherein physicians were randomized to first use one of the two medical knowledge resources to answer six standardized questions. Following use of each resource, they were surveyed regarding their user experience. The percentage of accurate answers and time required to answer each question were recorded. The surveys assessed ease of use, enjoyment using the resource, quality of information, and ability to assess level of evidence. Tests of carry-over effects were performed. Themes were identified within open-ended survey comments regarding overall user experience.

Results Among 26 participating physicians, accuracy of answers differed by 4 percentage points or less. For all but one question, there were no significant differences in the time required for completion. Most participants felt both resources were easy to use, contained high quality of information, and enabled assessment of the level of evidence. A greater proportion of participants endorsed enjoyment of use with UpToDate (23/26, 88%) compared with DynaMed Plus (16/26, 62%). Themes from open-ended comments included interface/information presentation, coverage of clinical topics, search functions, and utility for clinical decision-making. The majority (59%) of open-ended comments expressed an overall preference for UpToDate, compared with 19% preferring DynaMed Plus.

Conclusion DynaMed Plus is noninferior to UpToDate with respect to ability to achieve accurate answers, time required for answering clinical questions, ease of use, quality of information, and ability to assess level of evidence. However, user experience was more positive with UpToDate. Future studies of electronic medical knowledge resources should continue to emphasize evaluation of usability and user experience.

Keywords

clinical decision support - medical knowledge resources - medical informatics - expert opinion - usability - user experience - information presentation

Protection of Human and Animal Subjects

The study was performed in compliance with the World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki on Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects, and was reviewed and approved by the University of California San Diego Institutional Review Board.


Supplementary Material



Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 18. August 2021

Angenommen: 04. Dezember 2021

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
02. Februar 2022

© 2022. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany