@Article{信息:doi 10.2196 / / jmir。2105年，作者=“杰弗里，丽贝卡和纳瓦罗，塔玛拉和洛克，辛西娅和海恩斯，R布莱恩和威尔钦斯基，南希L和法朱，乔治”，标题=“当前领先的循证医学教科书?《四种网络教材分析》，期刊=《医学网络研究》，年=“2012”，月=“12”，日=“10”，卷=“14”，号=“6”，页数=“e175”，关键词=“数据库，书目;医学信息学;背景:循证医学教科书的治疗建议与最近发表的证据的一致性迄今尚未被调查。不一致可能会影响医疗服务的质量。目的:确定领先的在线循证医学教科书中主题报告与最近发表的研究证据一致的治疗建议的频率。方法:将四本循证教科书——UpToDate、医师信息教育资源(PIER)、DynaMed和最佳实践——涵盖的200个临床主题(即疾病状态)的总结治疗建议与证据评级服务(麦克马斯特高级文献服务，PLUS)中自每本教科书中最新主题更新之日起确定的文章进行比较。将教科书上的治疗建议与文章的结果进行比较，以确定文章是否提供了不同的新结论。根据这些发现，计算出每本教科书中可能需要更新的主题的比例。 Results: 478 clinical topics were assessed for inclusion to find 200 topics that were addressed by all four textbooks. The proportion of topics for which there was 1 or more recently published articles found in PLUS with evidence that differed from the textbooks' treatment recommendations was 23{\%} (95{\%} CI 17-29{\%}) for DynaMed, 52{\%} (95{\%} CI 45-59{\%}) for UpToDate, 55{\%} (95{\%} CI 48-61{\%}) for PIER, and 60{\%} (95{\%} CI 53-66{\%}) for Best Practice ($\chi$23=65.3, P<.001). The time since the last update for each textbook averaged from 170 days (range 131-209) for DynaMed, to 488 days (range 423-554) for PIER (P<.001 across all textbooks). Conclusions: In online evidence-based textbooks, the proportion of topics with potentially outdated treatment recommendations varies substantially. ", issn="1438-8871", doi="10.2196/jmir.2105", url="//www.mybigtv.com/2012/6/e175/", url="https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.2105", url="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23220465" }