クリニカル・ク工スチョンを用いた臨床支援ツールの比較

Abstract

For busy physicians，the need to obtain highquality，evidence-based information rapidly is increasing as the importance of evidence-based medicine(EBM) becomes more widely accepted. Various information sources(point of care information tools) have been provided to respond to this need. Some reports have attempted to evaluate these tools. As these reports, the frequency of updates was highest for DynaMed and UpToDate had the largest number of topics. We set 3 clinical questions and compared the results of searches using 3 representative international point-of-care information tools (UpToDate, DynaMed, ACP PIER) and 1 Japanese tool (Konnichi-no Rinsho-Support). The survey showed that 3 international tools provided almost the same core references in their contents. The frequency of updates was not much difference between UpToDate and DynaMed. UpToDate provided recommendations based on not only references but also the opinions of experts. It could be said that UpToDate was the best tool, while it had some difficulties such as the length of sentences and high price. Although topic cover rate was less than UpToDate, DynaMed reached the level of practical use. The structure of ACP PIER is similar to DynaMed. Konnichi-no-Rinsho-Support is expected to be further developed as a point-of-care information tool for ]apanese researchers.