Table 3.

Sample of Participants' Comments Concerning the Interactive Evidence-based Exercise

MEDLINE search and online journals

If I limit the search too early, I am less likely to find the articles others found.

The more specific the search, the less successful I am.

The Windows-based version of MEDLINEis much more intuitive than the text-only version.

Online electronic journals will help me manage patients with data at the patients' bedside.

Downloading Adobe Acrobat articles makes the tables in journal articles easier to read.

Web of Science: Science Citation Index

Finding relevant articles that impact patient care is easier since the session.

This will be helpful in preparing for teaching conferences during rounds, morning report, and journal club.

The authors of the “Evaluating Chest Pain in Women” review article from the New England Journal of Medicine have an extensive publication history in cardiology journals.

Clinical recommendations for posttest evaluation and treatment

For high-risk patients with a negative test, the posttest probability of cardiac ischemia is still high (>50%).

The published clinical recommendations do not agree with the posttest probability.

The Website that calculates the posttest prediction is confusing because it uses terms like “prevalence” and abbreviations.

I am not sure I understand what the calculated numbers mean from the online Bayesian calculator.

The visual representation of post-test risk is more understandable than the online calculator because I intuitively see what the numbers mean.

I would like to be able to calculate posttest clinical risk accurately, especially for board test.

I rarely calculate posttest values during routine patient care. I just use my clinical judgment to decide posttest risk.