Randomized trial for answers to clinical questions: evaluating a pre-appraised versus a MEDLINE search protocol.

Abstract

The paper compares the speed, validity, and applicability of two different protocols for searching the primary medical literature. A randomized trial involving medicine residents was performed. An inpatient general medicine rotation was used. Thirty-two internal medicine residents were block randomized into four groups of eight. Success rate of each search protocol was measured by perceived search time, number of questions answered, and proportion of articles that were applicable and valid. Residents randomized to the MEDLINE-first (protocol A) group searched 120 questions, and residents randomized to the MEDLINE-last (protocol B) searched 133 questions. In protocol A, 104 answers (86.7%) and, in protocol B, 117 answers (88%) were found to clinical questions. In protocol A, residents reported that 26 (25.2%) of the answers were obtained quickly or rated as "fast" (<5 minutes) as opposed to 55 (51.9%) in protocol B, (P = 0.0004). A subset of questions and articles (n = 79) were reviewed by faculty who found that both protocols identified similar numbers of answer articles that addressed the questions and were felt to be valid using critical appraisal criteria. For resident-generated clinical questions, both protocols produced a similarly high percentage of applicable and valid articles. The MEDLINE-last search protocol was perceived to be faster. However, in the MEDLINE-last protocol, a significant portion of questions (23%) still required searching MEDLINE to find an answer.