A comparative evaluation of PDQ-Evidence
Loading...
Date
2018
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
BioMed Central
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A strategy for minimising the time and obstacles to accessing systematic reviews of health system
evidence is to collect them in a freely available database and make them easy to find through a simple ‘Google-style’
search interface. PDQ-Evidence was developed in this way. The objective of this study was to compare PDQ-Evidence
to six other databases, namely Cochrane Library, EVIPNet VHL, Google Scholar, Health Systems Evidence, PubMed
and Trip.
METHODS: We recruited healthcare policy-makers, managers and health researchers in low-, middle- and highincome
countries. Participants selected one of six pre-determined questions. They searched for a systematic
review that addressed the chosen question and one question of their own in PDQ-Evidence and in two of the
other six databases which they would normally have searched. We randomly allocated participants to search
PDQ-Evidence first or to search the two other databases first. The primary outcomes were whether a systematic
review was found and the time taken to find it. Secondary outcomes were perceived ease of use and perceived
time spent searching. We asked open-ended questions about PDQ-Evidence, including likes, dislikes, challenges
and suggestions for improvements.
RESULTS: A total of 89 people from 21 countries completed the study; 83 were included in the primary analyses
and 6 were excluded because of data errors that could not be corrected. Most participants chose PubMed and
Cochrane Library as the other two databases. Participants were more likely to find a systematic review using
PDQ-Evidence than using Cochrane Library or PubMed for the pre-defined questions. For their own questions, this
difference was not found. Overall, it took slightly less time to find a systematic review using PDQ-Evidence. Participants
perceived that it took less time, and most participants perceived PDQ-Evidence to be slightly easier to use than the
two other databases. However, there were conflicting views about the design of PDQ-Evidence.
CONCLUSIONS: PDQ-Evidence is at least as efficient as other databases for finding health system evidence. However,
using PDQ-Evidence is not intuitive for some people.
Description
Keywords
Health policy, Health systems, Systematic reviews, Evidence-informed health policy, Comparative study, Bibliographic databases, Clearing house, Search engine, Database searching, Search strategie, Information retrieval
Citation
Johansen, M. et al. (2018). A comparative evaluation of PDQ-Evidence. Health Research Policy and Systems, 16: 27