Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Practical resources to support evidence-based healthcare decisions are rapidly evolving. New and better services are being created through the combined forces of increasing numbers of clinically important studies, increasingly robust evidence synthesis and synopsis services, and better information technology and systems. The need for these resources is being spurred by demands for higher quality at lower cost from health services, but the impact of better information resources is being blunted by noisy pretenders, promising “the earth” but yielding just the dirt. Providers and consumers of evidence-based health care can help themselves to best current evidence by recognising and using the most “evolved” information services for the topic areas of concern to them.
Figure 1⇓ depicts a “4S” hierarchical structure, with original Studies at the base, Syntheses (systematic reviews) of evidence just above the base, then Synopses of studies and syntheses next up, and the most evolved evidence-based information “Systems” at the top. Information seekers should begin looking at the highest level resource available for the problem that prompted their search.
A perfect evidence-based clinical information system would integrate and concisely summarise all relevant and important research evidence about a clinical problem, and would automatically link, through an electronic medical record, a specific patient's circumstances to the relevant information. The user would then consult the system—in fact, be reminded by the system—whenever the patient's medical record was reviewed. The information contained in the system would be based on an explicit review process for finding and evaluating evidence, and would be reliably updated whenever important new research evidence becomes available, so that the clinician and patient could always have the benefit of the current best evidence.
The system would not tell the decision maker what to do—these clinical judgments would need to integrate the system's evidence with the patient's circumstances and wishes.1 Rather, the system would ensure that whatever cumulative research evidence had to say about the patient's problem was immediately at hand. Furthermore, a short synopsis would be at the point of first interaction with the user to maximise speed of use, but this synopsis would be electronically linked to the syntheses, then original studies, on which it was based so that the user could go to whatever depth was needed to verify the accuracy, currency, and details of the synopsis.
Readily available systems don't reach this level of perfection, but production models exist for parts of such systems. Electronic medical record systems with computerised decision support rules have been shown in randomised trials to improve the process, and sometimes the outcome,2 of care, but these cover a limited range of clinical problems, are not necessarily based on current best evidence, and are mainly “homebuilt,” thus not easily acquired in most practice settings.
Given that we have some way to go before current best evidence is integrated into electronic medical records, some excellent, but less developed systems are now available. For example, some electronic textbooks integrate evidence-based information about specific clinical problems and provide regular updating. UpToDate (on CD and the internet: http://www.uptodate.com) for general internal medicine is one of the leading examples of an evidence-based textbook at present, but it is not explicit about the processes it uses to ensure that all relevant evidence is reviewed, assessed, and included, and it isn't integrated into electronic medical records.
Clinical Evidence (http://www.evidence.org) is a new contender. It has an explicit review process, and integrates evidence about prevention and treatment for a broad and rapidly expanding array of clinical problems in all medical disciplines, including several chapters on mental health disorders. Thus, it provides a model for the 4S approach to building information systems that are firmly based on underpinning studies, syntheses, and synopses. Clinical Evidence is also available on Ovid (http://www.ovid.com) as a separate book title, with integration into Ovid's Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews (EBMR) service promised for 2001.
Although none of these systems is integrated with electronic medical records, they can be run through the same computers that run electronic medical records, so that one need not go to a remote location to find them. Unfortunately, connecting the right information to a specific patient's problems requires that clinicians understand evidence-based care principles, and that they apply some effort and skill in using the resources. Fortunately, these emerging information systems reduce these burdens considerably.
When no evidence-based information system exists for a clinical problem, then synopses of reviews or individual studies are the next best source. What busy practitioner has time to use evidence-based resources if the evidence is presented in its original form or even as detailed systematic reviews? While these detailed articles and reviews are essential building blocks, they are often indigestible if consumed in whole on the run. The perfect synopsis would provide exactly enough information to support a clinical action, obviating the need to read the whole article or review. The most digestible attempt to do this would be the “one liner” declarative titles for the abstracts that appear in Evidence-Based Mental Health (EBMH), such as “virtual reality exposure was as effective as standard exposure for reducing fear of flying” in this issue of EBMH. A more detailed summary from one of EBMH's sister publications, including the declarative title plus the essential details on which this is based, appears in the table⇓. In some circumstances, either of these can provide enough information to allow the decision maker to proceed, assuming familiarity with the nature of the intervention and its alternatives. If not, the synopsis should be backed up by more detail, immediately at hand. The full abstract for this item is in Evidence-Based Medicine and Best Evidence, with an abstract and commentary on 1 full printed page. The synopsis in the table⇓ could be easily adopted to wireless palmtop internet devices.
If more detail is needed, or no synopsis is at hand, then databases of systematic reviews (“syntheses”) are available, notably the Cochrane Library, which is available on CD, internet (http://www.updateusa.com/clibip/clib.htm), and in Aries Knowledge Finder (KF) (http://www.kfinder.com) and Ovid's EBMR service. These summaries are based on a rigorous search for evidence, explicit scientific review of the studies uncovered in the search, and systematic assembly of the evidence to provide as clear a signal about the effects of a healthcare intervention as the evidence will allow. Unfortunately, these reviews do not yet extend to clinical topics other than preventive or therapeutic interventions.
Stimulated by the success of the Cochrane Collaboration, the number of systematic reviews in the medical literature has grown tremendously in the past few years; if the Cochrane Library doesn't have a review on the topic you are interested in, it is worthwhile looking in Medline. Better still, Ovid EBMR and Aries KF provide one stop shopping for both Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews. For the example of “clozapine and schizophrenia,” a search on Ovid's Best Evidence, Cochrane, DARE, and Medline databases retrieves 736 items. Limiting this search to “EBM Reviews” (a check box below the search window in Ovid) cuts this down to 19 items, all but 2 of which are individual randomised controlled trials that are linked to Cochrane Reviews in which they are summarised. Cochrane Reviews are also now indexed in Medline: “clozapine and Cochrane Review” in PubMed retrieves 6 Cochrane reviews in which clozapine is considered.
If all the other Ss fails (ie, no system, synopses, or syntheses), that's the time to look for original studies. On the web these can be retrieved in a number of ways. Especially if you don't know which database is best suited to your question, search engines that are tuned for healthcare content can assemble access across a number of web based services. At least one of these search engines is attentive to issues of quality of evidence, namely, SUMSearch (http://sumsearch.uthscsa.edu). Nevertheless, the user must appraise the items identified by such a search to determine which fall within the “quality rated” schema presented here—many will not, especially when convenience of access is favoured over quality. There are also at least 2 levels of evidence-based databases to search directly, specialised and general. If the topic falls within internal medicine and primary care, then Best Evidence provides a specialised, evidence-based service, because the articles abstracted in this database have been appraised for scientific merit and clinical relevance. If the search is for a treatment, then the Cochrane Library includes the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register. SilverPlatter and other bibliographic database companies have specialised versions of Medline. Medline itself is freely available (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/PubMed/), and the clinical queries screen provides detailed search strategies that home in on clinical content for diagnosis, prognosis, treatment, and aetiology.
If none of these services provides a satisfying result, it is time to go to the main search screen in Medline's PubMed and try there. If you still have no luck, and the topic is, say, a new treatment (one that your patients have asked about but you don't yet know about), then try Google (http://www.google.com). It is incredibly fast and can get you to a product monograph in a few milliseconds. At least you will find what the manufacturer of the treatment claims it can do, as well as detailed information on adverse effects, contraindications, and prescribing. The Google home page allows you to add a Google search window to your web browser's home page. Unless you are a very slow typist, this is the fastest way to get to almost any service on the internet, including all the ones named in this article that are web accessible.
It's worth emphasising that almost all the resources just reviewed are available on the internet. The “value added” of accessing these services on the web is considerable, including links to full text journal articles, patient information, and complementary texts.
Is it time to change how you seek best evidence?
Compare the `4S' approach with how you usually seek evidence-based information. Is it time to revise your tactics? If, for example, it surprises you that Medline is so low on the 4S list of resources for finding current best evidence, then this communication will have served a purpose: resources for finding evidence have evolved in the past few years, and searches can be a lot quicker and more satisfying for answering clinical questions if the features of your quest match those of one of the evolved services. This is in no way a knock against Medline, which continues to serve as a premier access route to the studies and reviews that form the foundation for all the other more specialised databases reviewed above. There are big rewards from becoming familiar with these new resources and using them whenever the right clinical question presents itself.
Conflict of interest statement: Brian Haynes has direct or indirect connections with many of the evidence-based resources used as examples above, including ACP Journal Club (editor), Evidence-Based Medicine (co-editor), Best Evidence (editor), the Cochrane Library (reviewer, and former board member and Cochrane Centre director), Scientific American Medicine (associate editor), Clinical Evidence (advisory board), and PubMed Clinical Queries (developer). These resources are used to illustrate the concepts in the article; there are other, and perhaps better, examples.