Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Bulletin of the Medical Library Association logoLink to Bulletin of the Medical Library Association
. 1996 Jul;84(3):351–358.

Beyond relevance--characteristics of key papers for clinicians: an exploratory study in an academic setting.

M E Sievert 1, E J McKinin 1, E D Johnson 1, J C Reid 1, J A Mitchell 1
PMCID: PMC226155  PMID: 8883983

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine what factors beyond relevance influence a clinician's decision to choose to read one journal article over another in satisfying an information need. DESIGN: Seventeen health care providers were interviewed and then surveyed regarding the characteristics of key articles (those they would not want to miss). On a Likert scale, the clinicians graded forty-two characteristics for importance in the decision process. Relevance was assumed and not at issue. SETTING: The study took place in an academic health science center. SUBJECTS: The subjects were seventeen clinicians, all with patient care responsibilities. There were four internists, four surgeons, three family practitioners, three pediatricians, two psychiatrists, and one clinical psychologist. RESULTS: Factors beyond relevance that most often influenced the decision process pertained to methodological rigor, authors and their institutional affiliations, document types, and population studied. CONCLUSIONS: Among the clinicians surveyed, factors beyond topicality influenced judgments as to what constitutes an important article. The emphasis respondents gave to certain attributes is echoed in other published work and highlights the need for more intensive investigation of these non-subject indicators as search parameters. Improved searching capabilities might well lead to a significant reduction in the clinician's information overload.

Full text

PDF
351

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Begg C. B., Pocock S. J., Freedman L., Zelen M. State of the art in comparative cancer clinical trials. Cancer. 1987 Dec 1;60(11):2811–2815. doi: 10.1002/1097-0142(19871201)60:11<2811::aid-cncr2820601136>3.0.co;2-p. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Bernstein F. The retrieval of randomized clinical trials in liver diseases from the medical literature: manual versus MEDLARS searches. Control Clin Trials. 1988 Mar;9(1):23–31. doi: 10.1016/0197-2456(88)90006-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Chalmers I., Hetherington J., Newdick M., Mutch L., Grant A., Enkin M., Enkin E., Dickersin K. The Oxford Database of Perinatal Trials: developing a register of published reports of controlled trials. Control Clin Trials. 1986 Dec;7(4):306–324. doi: 10.1016/0197-2456(86)90038-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Colaianni L. A. Peer review in journals indexed in Index Medicus. JAMA. 1994 Jul 13;272(2):156–158. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Connelly D. P., Rich E. C., Curley S. P., Kelly J. T. Knowledge resource preferences of family physicians. J Fam Pract. 1990 Mar;30(3):353–359. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Covell D. G., Uman G. C., Manning P. R. Information needs in office practice: are they being met? Ann Intern Med. 1985 Oct;103(4):596–599. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-103-4-596. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Curley S. P., Connelly D. P., Rich E. C. Physicians' use of medical knowledge resources: preliminary theoretical framework and findings. Med Decis Making. 1990 Oct-Dec;10(4):231–241. doi: 10.1177/0272989X9001000401. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Dickersin K., Hewitt P., Mutch L., Chalmers I., Chalmers T. C. Perusing the literature: comparison of MEDLINE searching with a perinatal trials database. Control Clin Trials. 1985 Dec;6(4):306–317. doi: 10.1016/0197-2456(85)90106-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Etzioni A. The need for quality filters in information systems. Science. 1971 Jan 15;171(3967):133–133. doi: 10.1126/science.171.3967.133. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Fuhrer M. J., Grabois M. Information sources that influence physiatrists' adoption of new clinical practices. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1988 Mar;69(3 Pt 1):167–169. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Haynes R. B., McKibbon K. A., Walker C. J., Ryan N., Fitzgerald D., Ramsden M. F. Online access to MEDLINE in clinical settings. A study of use and usefulness. Ann Intern Med. 1990 Jan 1;112(1):78–84. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-112-1-78. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Huth E. J. The underused medical literature. Ann Intern Med. 1989 Jan 15;110(2):99–100. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-110-2-99. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Johnson E. D., McKinin E. J., Sievert M. The application of quality filters in searching the clinical literature: some possible heuristics. Med Ref Serv Q. 1992 Winter;11(4):39–59. doi: 10.1300/j115v11n04_04. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Kirpalani H., Schmidt B., McKibbon K. A., Haynes R. B., Sinclair J. C. Searching MEDLINE for randomized clinical trials involving care of the newborn. Pediatrics. 1989 Apr;83(4):543–546. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. McKibbon K. A., Walker-Dilks C. J. Beyond ACP Journal Club: how to harness MEDLINE for diagnostic problems. ACP J Club. 1994 Sep-Oct;121 (Suppl 2):A10–A12. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. McKinin E. J., Sievert M., Johnson E. D., Mitchell J. A. The Medline/full-text research project. J Am Soc Inf Sci. 1991 May;42(4):297–307. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(199105)42:4<297::AID-ASI6>3.0.CO;2-M. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Osheroff J. A., Forsythe D. E., Buchanan B. G., Bankowitz R. A., Blumenfeld B. H., Miller R. A. Physicians' information needs: analysis of questions posed during clinical teaching. Ann Intern Med. 1991 Apr 1;114(7):576–581. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-114-7-576. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Pao M. L. A quality filtering system for medical literature. J Med Educ. 1975 Apr;50(4):353–359. doi: 10.1097/00001888-197504000-00005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Poynard T., Conn H. O. The retrieval of randomized clinical trials in liver disease from the medical literature. A comparison of MEDLARS and manual methods. Control Clin Trials. 1985 Dec;6(4):271–279. doi: 10.1016/0197-2456(85)90103-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Slawson D. C., Shaughnessy A. F., Bennett J. H. Becoming a medical information master: feeling good about not knowing everything. J Fam Pract. 1994 May;38(5):505–513. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Stross J. K., Harlan W. R. Dissemination of relevant information on hypertension. JAMA. 1981 Jul 24;246(4):360–362. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Stross J. K., Harlan W. R. The dissemination of new medical information. JAMA. 1979 Jun 15;241(24):2622–2624. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Wilczynski N. L., Walker C. J., McKibbon K. A., Haynes R. B. Assessment of methodologic search filters in MEDLINE. Proc Annu Symp Comput Appl Med Care. 1993:601–605. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Williamson J. W., German P. S., Weiss R., Skinner E. A., Bowes F., 3rd Health science information management and continuing education of physicians. A survey of U.S. primary care practitioners and their opinion leaders. Ann Intern Med. 1989 Jan 15;110(2):151–160. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-110-2-151. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Woolf S. H., Benson D. A. The medical information needs of internists and pediatricians at an academic medical center. Bull Med Libr Assoc. 1989 Oct;77(4):372–380. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Bulletin of the Medical Library Association are provided here courtesy of Medical Library Association

RESOURCES