The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Do Online Information Retrieval Systems Help Experienced Clinicians Answer Clinical Questions?
Open accessAbstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of clinicians' use of an online information retrieval system on their performance in answering clinical questions. DESIGN: Pre-/post-intervention experimental design. MEASUREMENTS: In a computer laboratory, 75 clinicians (26 hospital-based doctors, 18 family practitioners, and 31 clinical nurse consultants) provided 600 answers to eight clinical scenarios before and after the use of an online information retrieval system. We examined the proportion of correct answers pre- and post-intervention, direction of change in answers, and differences between professional groups. RESULTS: System use resulted in a 21% improvement in clinicians' answers, from 29% (95% confidence interval [CI] 25.4-32.6) correct pre- to 50% (95% CI 46.0-54.0) post-system use. In 33% (95% CI 29.1-36.9) answers were changed from incorrect to correct. In 21% (95% CI 17.1-23.9) correct pre-test answers were supported by evidence found using the system, and in 7% (95% CI 4.9-9.1) correct pre-test answers were changed incorrectly. For 40% (35.4-43.6) of scenarios, incorrect pre-test answers were not rectified following system use. Despite significant differences in professional groups' pre-test scores [family practitioners: 41% (95% CI 33.0-49.0), hospital doctors: 35% (95% CI 28.5-41.2), and clinical nurse consultants: 17% (95% CI 12.3-21.7; chi(2) = 29.0, df = 2, p < 0.01)], there was no difference in post-test scores. (chi(2) = 2.6, df = 2, p = 0.73). CONCLUSIONS: The use of an online information retrieval system was associated with a significant improvement in the quality of answers provided by clinicians to typical clinical problems. In a small proportion of cases, use of the system produced errors. While there was variation in the performance of clinical groups when answering questions unaided, performance did not differ significantly following system use. Online information retrieval systems can be an effective tool in improving the accuracy of clinicians' answers to clinical questions.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Practical Statistics for Medical Research
Altman, D. G. (1990) · doi:10.1201/9780429258589 · Cited by 10,668
Ash, J. S. (2003) · Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association · doi:10.1197/jamia.m1471 · Cited by 1,789
Does automation bias decision-making?
SKITKA, L. J., MOSIER, K. L., & BURDICK, M. (1999) · International Journal of Human-Computer Studies · doi:10.1006/ijhc.1999.0252 · Cited by 694
Cited by
Utilization of the PICO framework to improve searching PubMed for clinical questions
Schardt, C., Adams, M. B., Owens, T., Keitz, S., & Fontelo, P. (2007) · BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making · doi:10.1186/1472-6947-7-16 · Cited by 3,053
“Westbrook et al reported that the use of an online information retrieval system improved the quality of clinicians' answers to clinical questions by 21% [5].”
Complacency and Bias in Human Use of Automation: An Attentional Integration
Parasuraman, R., & Manzey, D. H. (2010) · Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1177/0018720810376055 · Cited by 1,710
Automation bias: a systematic review of frequency, effect mediators, and mitigators
Goddard, K., Roudsari, A., & Wyatt, J. C. (2012) · Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association · doi:10.1136/amiajnl-2011-000089 · Cited by 1,162
Automating data extraction in systematic reviews: a systematic review
Jonnalagadda, S. R., Goyal, P., & Huffman, M. D. (2015) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/s13643-015-0066-7 · Cited by 287
Junior physician's use of Web 2.0 for information seeking and medical education: a qualitative study
Hughes, B., Joshi, I., Lemonde, H., & Wareham, J. (2009) · International Journal of Medical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2009.04.008 · Cited by 217
Metadata
- Authors
- Westbrook, J. I.
- Venue
- Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2005-01-31
- Volume
- 12
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 315-321
- ISSN
- 1067-5027 (ISSN-L)
- 1527-974X
- OpenAlex
- W2112341255
- Cited by
- 181
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 30.84
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Do Online Information Retrieval Systems Help Experienced Clinicians Answer Clinical Questions? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1197/jamia.m1717
- The paper
- Westbrook, J. I. (2005). Do Online Information Retrieval Systems Help Experienced Clinicians Answer Clinical Questions? Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association. https://doi.org/10.1197/jamia.m1717
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.