The contribution of information technology to improving clinicians' access to high quality evidence

International Journal of Psychiatry in Medicine

Volumn 29, Issue 3, 1999, Pages 287-292

  Geddes, John R ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Evidence based medicine; Information technology; Systematic reviews

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL PRACTICE; CLINICAL RESEARCH; COMPUTER SYSTEM; DATA BASE; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HUMAN; INFORMATION SYSTEM; MEDICAL INFORMATION; REVIEW;

EID: 0033452047     PISSN: 00912174     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2190/J4TH-DNQR-8UR3-AF8A     Document Type: Review

References (9)

1. Smith R. What clinical information do doctors need? British Medical Journal 1996;313:1062-1068.
2. Mulrow CD. Rationale for systematic reviews. British Medical Journal 1994;309: 597-599.
3. Geddes JR, Wilczynski N, Reynolds S, Szatmari P, Streiner DL. Evidence-based mental health - The first year. Evidence-Based Mental Health 1999;2:3-5.
4. Antman EM, Lau J, Kupelnick B, Mosteller F, Chalmers TC. A comparison of results of meta-analyses of randomized control trials and recommendations of clinical experts. Treatments for myocardial infarction. Journal of the American Medical Association 1992;268:240-248.
5. Cochrane AL. 1931-1971: A critical review, with particular reference to the medical profession. In Medicines for the year 2000. London: Office of Health Economics, 1979;1-11.
6. Cochrane Collaboration. Cochrane Collaboration Handbook. Oxford: Cochrane Collaboration, 1995.
7. Anonymous. Schizophrenia and the Cochrane Collaboration. Cochrane Collaboration Schizophrenia Review Group. Schizophrenia Research 1994;13:185-187.
8. The Cochrane Collaboration. The Cochrane Library. Oxford: Update Software, 1996.
9. Haynes RB, Wilczynski N, McKibbon KA, Walker CJ, Sinclair JC. Developing optimal search strategies for detecting clinically sound studies in MEDLINE. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 1994;1:447-458.