Translating Clinical Questions by Physicians Into Searchable Queries: Analytical Survey Study.

Background: Staying up to date and answering clinical questions with current best evidence from health research is challenging. Evidence-based clinical texts, databases, and tools can help, but clinicians first need to translate their clinical questions into searchable queries. MacPLUS FS (McMaster Premium LiteratUre Service Federated Search) is an online search engine that allows clinicians to explore multiple resources simultaneously and retrieves one single output that includes the following: (1) evidence from summaries (eg, UpToDate and DynaMed), (2) preappraised research (eg, EvidenceAlerts), and (3) non-preappraised research (eg, PubMed), with and without validated bibliographic search filters.

Improving medication adherence in patients with cardiovascular disease: a systematic review.

Objective: To evaluate and compare the effect of interventions for improving adherence to medications for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) secondary prevention.

Methods: We extracted eligible trials from a 2014 Cochrane systematic review on adherence for any condition. We updated the search from CENTRAL, Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Sociological Abstracts and trial registers through November 2016.

Context-aware grading of quality evidences for evidence-based decision-making.

Processing huge repository of medical literature for extracting relevant and high-quality evidences demands efficient evidence support methods. We aim at developing methods to automate the process of finding quality evidences from a plethora of literature documents and grade them according to the context (local condition). We propose a two-level methodology for quality recognition and grading of evidences.

WhatisKT wiki: a case study of a platform for knowledge translation terms and definitions--descriptive analysis.

Background: More than a hundred terms, often with unclear definitions and varying emphases, are used by health research and practice communities across the world who are interested in getting the best possible evidence applied (e.g., knowledge translation, implementation science, diffusion of innovations, and technology transfer).

"Push" versus "Pull" for mobilizing pain evidence into practice across different health professions: a protocol for a randomized trial.

Background: Optimizing pain care requires ready access and use of best evidence within and across different disciplines and settings. The purpose of this randomized trial is to determine whether a technology-based "push" of new, high-quality pain research to physicians, nurses, and rehabilitation and psychology professionals results in better knowledge and clinical decision making around pain, when offered in addition to traditional "pull" evidence technology. A secondary objective is to identify disciplinary variations in response to evidence and differences in the patterns of accessing research evidence.

Retrieving randomized controlled trials from medline: a comparison of 38 published search filters.

Background: People search medline for trials of healthcare interventions for clinical decisions, or to produce systematic reviews, practice guidelines, or technology assessments. Finding all relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with little extraneous material is challenging.

Objective: To provide comparative data on the operating characteristics of search filters designed to retrieve RCTs from medline.

What do evidence-based secondary journals tell us about the publication of clinically important articles in primary healthcare journals?

Background: We conducted this analysis to determine i) which journals publish high-quality, clinically relevant studies in internal medicine, general/family practice, general practice nursing, and mental health; and ii) the proportion of clinically relevant articles in each journal.

Methods: We performed an analytic survey of a hand search of 170 general medicine, general healthcare, and specialty journals for 2000. Research staff assessed individual articles by using explicit criteria for scientific merit for healthcare application.