Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: Evidence-based abstract journals have been produced by the Health Information Research Unit (HIRU) at McMaster University since 1991. The journals contain abstracts and commentaries of high-quality, methodologically sound original studies and systematic reviews. HIRU has recently developed an innovative service called McMaster PLUS (Premium Literature - Ultra Service) which works in conjunction with the Northern Ontario Virtual Library (NOVL) system to provide access to online library resources (Ovid [a digital library of journals, books and databases], MD Consult [a collection of medical texts and journals], Stat!Ref [a collection of medical texts]). PLUS targets information to physicians' specific needs and expertise, offers continuing medical education credits, and provides web links to health care product and patient information.
Objectives: How do Cochrane Reviews stack up in the clinical literature featured in ACP Journal Club (JClub), Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM), Evidence-Based Nursing (EBN), and Evidence-Based Mental Health (EBMH)? What are the usage rates for Cochrane reviews in the PLUS project?
Methods: Evidence-based journals: For the period 1996 to 2003, research associates selected studies and reviews according to methodological criteria from about 115 clinical journals plus the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Chief editors of the evidence-based journals, using a vote system involving associate editors and clinicians world-wide, determined which studies and reviews to abstract. PLUS project: The usage statistics for clinicians participating in the McMaster PLUS project were collected from November 2003 to determine the most frequently used resources.
Results: Evidence-based journals: The proportion of systematic reviews abstracted has increased since the evidence-based journals began publication in 1991 when reviews comprised 22% of the abstract content (the "A-list") in JClub. By 2002 the proportion of systematic reviews was 38%. Cochrane reviews have been conspicuous in this growing presence of reviews in the A-list. In 1996, 3 Cochrane reviews were abstracted in the 2 evidence-based journals then being published (JClub and EBM) comprising 1.4% of the A-list. In comparison, N Engl J Med yielded 21%, Lancet 12.6%, BMJ 10.8%, and JAMA 10.4%. Cochrane review content steadily grew in the ensuing years (Figure 1). PLUS project: The percentage of total search sessions logged by PLUS users since November 2003 was 41% for MD Consult, 38% for Ovid, and 22% for Stat!Ref. For the databases contained within Ovid, a substantial proportion of search sessions was logged for Cochrane databases: 8.2% for the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 4.8% for the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, 8.6% for JClub, 8.4% for MEDLINE (1966 to present), 1.6% for Cumulated Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (1982 to present), and 6.4% for other databases.
Conclusions: Cochrane reviews have grown to constitute a substantial fraction of the evidence-based literature of medicine and nursing and are frequently sought by clinicians searching the health literature.
Acknowledgements: James McKinlay (PLUS), Susan Marks and Angela Eady (Evidence-Based Journals).
Objectives: How do Cochrane Reviews stack up in the clinical literature featured in ACP Journal Club (JClub), Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM), Evidence-Based Nursing (EBN), and Evidence-Based Mental Health (EBMH)? What are the usage rates for Cochrane reviews in the PLUS project?
Methods: Evidence-based journals: For the period 1996 to 2003, research associates selected studies and reviews according to methodological criteria from about 115 clinical journals plus the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Chief editors of the evidence-based journals, using a vote system involving associate editors and clinicians world-wide, determined which studies and reviews to abstract. PLUS project: The usage statistics for clinicians participating in the McMaster PLUS project were collected from November 2003 to determine the most frequently used resources.
Results: Evidence-based journals: The proportion of systematic reviews abstracted has increased since the evidence-based journals began publication in 1991 when reviews comprised 22% of the abstract content (the "A-list") in JClub. By 2002 the proportion of systematic reviews was 38%. Cochrane reviews have been conspicuous in this growing presence of reviews in the A-list. In 1996, 3 Cochrane reviews were abstracted in the 2 evidence-based journals then being published (JClub and EBM) comprising 1.4% of the A-list. In comparison, N Engl J Med yielded 21%, Lancet 12.6%, BMJ 10.8%, and JAMA 10.4%. Cochrane review content steadily grew in the ensuing years (Figure 1). PLUS project: The percentage of total search sessions logged by PLUS users since November 2003 was 41% for MD Consult, 38% for Ovid, and 22% for Stat!Ref. For the databases contained within Ovid, a substantial proportion of search sessions was logged for Cochrane databases: 8.2% for the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 4.8% for the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, 8.6% for JClub, 8.4% for MEDLINE (1966 to present), 1.6% for Cumulated Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (1982 to present), and 6.4% for other databases.
Conclusions: Cochrane reviews have grown to constitute a substantial fraction of the evidence-based literature of medicine and nursing and are frequently sought by clinicians searching the health literature.
Acknowledgements: James McKinlay (PLUS), Susan Marks and Angela Eady (Evidence-Based Journals).