Charbonneau, D. H., & James, L. N. (2018). DynaMed Plus®: an evidence-based clinical reference resource. Medical Reference Services Quarterly, 37(2), 168-176.
Feature |
DynaMed Plus |
UpToDate |
---|---|---|
Update Frequency |
Daily |
Daily |
Number of Clinical Topics |
2,500+ |
10,500+ |
Peer-Reviewed Content and |
3 Tiered System of Evidence Rating |
2 Levels of Grading |
(Level 1 = likely reliable; Level 2 = mid-level evidence; Level 3 = lacking evidence) |
(Grade 1 = Strong; Grade 2 = Weak) |
|
Journals Monitored |
529+ |
440+ |
Section for Guidelines in Topics |
Yes |
No |
(“Guidelines and Resources” Section in each topic summary) |
(Guidelines may be cited in “References;” but not consistently collected and presented) |
|
Graphics/Images |
Yes |
Yes |
Mobile Version |
Yes |
Yes |
Off-Campus Access |
Yes |
Yes |
Clinical Calculators |
Yes |
Yes |
Patient Education Materials |
Yes |
Yes |
CME/CE Credit Available |
Yes |
Yes |
Andrews, R., Mehta, N., Maypole, J., & Martin, S. A. (2017). Staying afloat in a sea of information: point-of-care resources. Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine, 84(3), 225-235.
Johnson, E., Emani, V. K., & Ren, J. (2016). Breadth of coverage, ease of use, and quality of mobile point-of-care tool information summaries: an evaluation. JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 4(4).
Kwag KH, González-Lorenzo M, Banzi R, Bonovas S, Moja L. (2016). Providing doctors with high-quality information: an updated evaluation of web-based point-of-care information summaries. J Med Internet Res.,18(1):e15.
Five products (ACP Smart Medicine, BMJ Best Practice, Dynamed, Essential Evidence Topics, and UpToDate) received the maximum score for editorial quality. Six (ACP Smart Medicine, BestBets, BMJ Best Practice, Dynamed, EBM Guidelines, and UpToDate) received the maximum score for evidence-based methodology.
The ranking of point-of-care information summaries based on their strength of volume, editorial quality, and evidence-based methodology is shown in Figure 3 (full data reported in Multimedia Appendices 4-6). Best Practice, Dynamed, and UpToDate scored in the highest quartile across all three dimensions.
Campbell JM, Umapathysivam K, Xue Y, Lockwood C. (2015). Evidence-based practice point-of-care resources: a quantitative evaluation of quality, rigor, and content. Worldviews Evidence-Based Nursing, 12(6):313–27.
Type of output |
Formal ontology |
Flexibility of summary |
Reference |
Formal grade of recommendation |
CME |
Education other material |
Patient handout |
Clinical tools |
|
BMJ Best Practice |
Key point summaries |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes, specific |
No |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
DynaMed |
Key point summaries |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes, specific |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
UpToDate |
Book chapter like summaries |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes, specific |
Yes |
Yes |
No |
Yes |
Yes |
Authorship stated |
Peer review |
Frequency of updates |
Conflict of interest |
Commercial support |
Total |
|
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
UpToDate |
3 |
3 |
1 |
3 |
3 |
13 |
BMJ Best Practice |
3 |
3 |
1 |
3 |
3 |
13 |
DynaMed |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
4 |
Literature search/surveillance |
Method of critical appraisal |
Type of evidence |
Grading of evidence |
Expert opinion given |
Total |
|
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
UpToDate |
3 |
1 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
13 |
BMJ Best Practice |
3 |
3 |
3 |
1 |
1 |
11 |
DynaMed |
3 |
3 |
3 |
1 |
0 |
10 |