↓ Skip to main content

Should We Be Teaching Information Management Instead of Evidence‐based Medicine?

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research, October 2010
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
120 Mendeley
citeulike
3 CiteULike
connotea
1 Connotea
Title
Should We Be Teaching Information Management Instead of Evidence‐based Medicine?
Published in
Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research, October 2010
DOI 10.1007/s11999-010-1381-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shepard R. Hurwitz, David C. Slawson

Abstract

To encourage high-quality patient care guided by the best evidence, many medical schools and residencies are teaching techniques for critically evaluating the medical literature. While a large step forward in many regards, these skills of evidence-based medicine are necessary but not sufficient for the practice of contemporary medicine and surgery. Incorporating the best evidence into the real world of busy clinical practice requires the applied science of information management. Clinicians must learn the techniques and skills to focus on finding, evaluating, and using information at the point of care. This information must be both relevant to themselves and their patients and be valid. WHERE ARE WE NOW?: Today, orthopaedic surgery is in the post-Flexner era of passive didactic learning combined with the practical experience of surgery as taught by supervising experts. The medical student and house officer fill their memory with mountains of facts and classic references 'just in case' that information is needed. With libraries and now internet repositories of orthopaedic information, all orthopaedic knowledge can be readily accessed without having to store much in one's memory. Evidence is often trumped by the opinion of a teacher or expert in the field. WHERE DO WE NEED TO GO?: To improve the quality of orthopaedic surgery there should be application of the best evidence, changing practice where needed when evidence is available. To apply evidence, the evidence has to find a way into practice without the long pipeline of change that now exists. Evidence should trump opinion and unfounded practices. HOW DO WE GET THERE?: To create a curriculum and learning space for information management requires effort on the part of medical schools, residency programs and health systems. Internet sources need to be created that have the readily available evidence-based answers to patient issues so surgeons do not need to spend all the time necessary to research the questions on their own. Information management is built on a platform created by EBM but saves the surgeon time and improves accuracy by having experts validate the evidence and make it easily available.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 120 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 6 5%
United Kingdom 4 3%
Italy 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Ukraine 1 <1%
Unknown 105 88%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Librarian 16 13%
Researcher 15 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 12%
Student > Master 13 11%
Professor 11 9%
Other 40 33%
Unknown 11 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 72 60%
Social Sciences 9 8%
Computer Science 9 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 5%
Arts and Humanities 4 3%
Other 9 8%
Unknown 11 9%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 May 2013.
All research outputs
#7,263,349
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research
#1,997
of 7,298 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#34,681
of 108,272 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research
#14
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,298 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 108,272 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 37 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.