Developing and using a rubric for evaluating evidence-based medicine point-of-care tools |
| |
| Authors: | Suzanne Shurtz Margaret J Foster |
| |
| Institution: | Instructional Service Librarian, Medical Sciences Library, Texas A&M University, 4462 TAMU College Station, TX 77843-4462 ;Social Sciences and Education Librarian, Sterling C. Evans Library, Texas A&M University, 5000 TAMU College Station, TX 77843-5000 |
| |
| Abstract: | Objective:The research sought to establish a rubric for evaluating evidence-based medicine (EBM) point-of-care tools in a health sciences library.Methods:The authors searched the literature for EBM tool evaluations and found that most previous reviews were designed to evaluate the ability of an EBM tool to answer a clinical question. The researchers'' goal was to develop and complete rubrics for assessing these tools based on criteria for a general evaluation of tools (reviewing content, search options, quality control, and grading) and criteria for an evaluation of clinical summaries (searching tools for treatments of common diagnoses and evaluating summaries for quality control).Results:Differences between EBM tools'' options, content coverage, and usability were minimal. However, the products'' methods for locating and grading evidence varied widely in transparency and process.Conclusions:As EBM tools are constantly updating and evolving, evaluation of these tools needs to be conducted frequently. Standards for evaluating EBM tools need to be established, with one method being the use of objective rubrics. In addition, EBM tools need to provide more information about authorship, reviewers, methods for evidence collection, and grading system employed.Highlights- Eleven of the fourteen previous evidence-based medicine (EBM) tool evaluations were based on clinicians evaluating tools based on their perception of the products'' ability to answer a clinical question.
- EBM tools'' evidence summaries are not updated as often as products claim.
- Although many EBM tools claim to be evidence based, only 74% of the 70 evaluated treatment summaries included graded evidence.
Implications- To offer the best tools for users, medical libraries should evaluate EBM resources regularly, including the quality of the evidence provided.
- Medical librarians have a role to play in evaluating the quality of EBM products and can develop assessment tools to aid in this evaluation.
|
| |
| Keywords: | |
|
|
