Reviews About DynaMed Clinical Reference Services
Four recently-conducted independent studies from the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, McMaster University, BMJ, and KLAS have ranked DynaMed higher than other clinical reference s ervices in its ca tegory. These studies directly compared several well-known point-of-care reference resources; from the reports, study findi ngs showed that D ynaMed is the clear leader in the disease reference resource category, and results have identified DynaMed as the most current evidence-based point-of-care reference database.
KLAS Enterprises, LLC, 2011 and 2013
Clinical Decision Support 2011: Understanding the Impact, 2011. © 2011 KLAS Enterprises, LLC.All rights reserved.
Clinical Decision Support 2013: Sizing up the competition, December 2013 © KLAS Enterprises, LLC. All rights reserved
About the Report:
A report on clinical decision support resources by KLAS, a research firm that specializes in monitoring and reporting the performance of healthcare vendors, rated disease reference tools in a number of categories. In the KLAS survey, customers of each resource were surveyed in a variety of areas, including credibility, relevance, EMR integration and influence on decisions, as well as standardization of care and how well the resource met the overall needs of users.
DynaMed rated highest in both Clinical Decision Support 2011: Understanding the Impact and Clinical Decision Support 2013: Sizing up the competition by KLAS, outscoring every competitor -- including UpToDate.
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, December 2012
Rapid updates of new clinical studies and evidence-based guidelines: prospective cohort study
About the Study:
Ten online clinical information tools were assessed for quality based on an 11-item scale. Items evaluated included editorial policy and updating, study appraisal, and addition of new evidence-based guidelines and clinical research. Sixty randomly selected International Classification of Diseases 10 (ICD-10) were used to evaluated breadth of clinical coverage. Sample topics were chosen using the same 60 ICD-10 codes and were further used to assess speed of updates.
DynaMed was the most updated clinical information tool. The average time to the last content update was 3.5 months for DynaMed with some online clinical information tools taking up to 29 months between updates.
DynaMed, “consistently ranked near the top of each category” and was the only resource to score in the top three in each category.
J Clin Epidemiol. 2012 Dec;65(12):1289-95
Journal of Internet Research, December 2012
Consistency of treatment recommendations in online clinical references: cross-sectional analysis
About the Study:
Researchers at the Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics at McMaster University looked at how likely treatment recommendations in leading clinical information tools are consistent with published evidence. Researchers looked at UpToDate, DynaMed, PIER, and Best Practice. Treatment recommendations were evaluated for 200 clinical topics. The treatment recommendations in the clinical information tools were compared with published evidence. Based on these results, the proportion of topics which required updating was calculated for each online clinical information tool.
The percent of topics for which published information differed from the online clinical information tools was 23% for DynaMed, 52% for UpToDate, 55% for PIER, and 60% for Best Practice. The averaage amount of time since the last update for each online clinical information tool was 170 days for DynaMed and 488 days for PIER.
According to study authors, “DynaMed’s timeline for updating was the quickest and it had by far the least number of articles that needed to be updated, indicating that quality was not sacrificed for speed.”
J Med Internet Res 2012;14(6):e175
British Medical Journal, September 2011
Speed of updating online evidence based point of care summaries: prospective cohort analysis
About the Study:
Experts in evidence-based medicine evaluated five point-of-care resources to see how quickly the resources updated new evidence, addressing the importance of incorporating the best available evidence into the clinical workflow and the impact of updates on patient care. The researchers identified 128 systematic reviews that were considered important enough to change clinical practice, and followed the databases every month to determine how long it took for this evidence to show up in the resources promoted for doctors to use. Two months after a systematic review was published, the reviewers checked each database to see if the evidence was included, and then repeated their monitoring every month to measure how long it would take to include the evidence.
At two months, DynaMed already had more than 60% of the reviews being monitored, and this increased to 77% at three months, and 87% at nine months. All of the other databases included less than 50% of the important evidence, even after nine months. Researchers reported that the updating speed of some frequently relied-upon resources was too slow for them to reliably measure.
In addition, DynaMed was shown to be at least 78% faster and as much as 97% faster at including evidence than the other resources in the study, concluding that, "DynaMed has an updating process that markedly led the others."
BMJ 2011 Sep 23;343:d5856