The Programming Committee is pleased to announce the 2nd Annual Liberty Chapter Meeting will be held on, Tuesday, November 1, 2022, from 10:00am-5:00pm, at the Rutgers University Inn, in New Brunswick, NJ. The meeting will be held in-person and virtually. The programming committee has been actively meeting to create an engaging program for all our attendees focusing on the suggestions you all provided in the survey many of you answered earlier this year. These suggestions are captured in our theme: Navigating the Changing Tides of Health Sciences Librarianship.
To learn more and to register visit: 2022 Annual Meeting
Planning Committee, Chair
Summer 2022 Chapter Journal Club to Take Place on July 14
On July 14, the Liberty Chapter will host a journal club facilitated by Marie Ascher. We hope to see you there!
Time: 3-4 PM Eastern
To register: https://www.libertymla.org/Journal-Club
The article to be discussed is:
Baxter SL, Lander L, Clay B, et al. Comparing the Use of DynaMed and UpToDate by Physician Trainees in Clinical Decision-Making: A Randomized Crossover Trial. Appl Clin Inform. 2022;13(1):139-147. doi:10.1055/s-0041-1742216
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.