The purpose of this chart is to provide some general information about several top point-of-care resources in the medical field. This information should not be considered complete. I do not endorse any particular POC resources. The information gathered here by a literature review. Those articles published by medical expert which used bibliometric analysis are included. The articles which their methodology were solely based on user-centred analysis (i.e. medical community survey about the popularity of particular tools) are excluded to minimize risk of bias. If information about particular aspect of a POC was not obtained from the literature review, the editorial policy from their perspective website was cited. Please feel free to send me your feedback ntorabi at uwo.ca

1. Point of care tools comparison chart
2013
Point-of- Access Platform/ Content summary Evidence Rating Notable features/ Significance evidence-based Frequency of update Authorship Other
Care1 option Publisher methodology/ and/or updating transparency
availability of mechanism
policy online
ACP PIER Online, Stat!Ref A collection of over 400 3 level of statement Topics are selected by ACP based High Evidence- Monthly but the contents Individual
Mobile evidence summaries based on formal upon prevalence in clinical Based Methodology of at least six major authors, their
2 4
App published by the criteria . All summaries settings Score medical journals are credentials and
3 4
American College of with graded evidence Covers Internal and medicine reviewed each week by affiliations are
4
Physicians (ACP). specialists PIER's editorial staff. listed .
It does not provide Relevant citations are
4
Recommendations added to the “What's
7 New” section of module
Quality assessment scores 7/10
2
home pages.
Clinical Online, BMJ Group Aims to cover common The 4 level GRADE The content is based on pre- High Evidence- A tailored updating High editorial
Evidence Mobile or important clinical statement and quality selected clinical questions. Based Methodology schedule via the BMJ Quality Score
4
4 7
App conditions seen in assessment are based Results of thorough literature Score Evidence Centre.
primary and hospital only on the data searches about current evidence Hazard ratio (HR) of
care. The questions in presented in the are summarized into concise 0.03 when compared to
8
concern the benefits and Benefits and Harms answers. Rigorously peer DynaMed
5
harms of preventative sections, the reporting reviewed .
4
and therapeutic of which is in turn Covers GPs & specialists
interventions, with based on the It does not provide
4
emphasis on outcomes parameters outlined in Recommendations
5 6
that matter to patients. the review plan for Quality assessment scores 9/10
which a systematic
search has been
5
performed .
N.Torabi - Allyn & Betty Taylor Library - Last update : January 22, 2013 Page 1 of 5

2. Point of care tools comparison chart
2013
6 8
DynaMed Online, EBSCO A medical information 3 levels of grades Covers GPs& specialists
4
High Evidence- Daily , HR of 1. Individual
9
Mobile database with over recommendations but Intent to provide Based Methodology authors, their
4 4
App 3,200 clinical topic not all summaries have Recommendations Score credentials and
3 6
summaries. graded evidence Quality assessment scores 8/10 affiliations are
4
https://dynamed.eb NOT listed
scohost.com/conten
t/7-step-process
EBM Online John Wiley An easy-to-use 4 levels of grading Audio samples linked to articles, NA Continuously updated. The articles are
Guidelines & Sons, Inc collection of nearly system
11
including descriptions of HR of 0.22 when also indexed by
1,000 clinical guidelines pulmonary diseases and heart compared to DynaMed author and by
8 10
for primary and murmurs in children. speciality.
4
ambulatory care linked Covers GPs
to the best available Intent to provide
4
evidence and Over Recommendations
3,000 quality graded
10
evidence summaries
Essential Online, Wiley- Filtered, synopsized, Level of evidence It covers primary care topics that http://www.essenti Updating policy is not Individual
Evidence Mobile Blackwell evidence-based (LOE) refers to a measure patient-oriented alevidenceplus.com clear. authors are
Plus App information which rating indicator outcomes (morbidity, mortality, /product/ebm_over mentioned but
includes: EBM topics and provided by the quality of life) should change view.cfm only credentials
Guidelines, daily POEMs Centre for Evidence- practice, if the reported results and affiliations
podcast, Cochrane Based Medicine, are valid. They are also called of some of
4
Abstracts, Practice Oxford and 4 levels of POEMs--Patient-Oriented them are listed
12
Guidelines, Calculators, grading system. Evidence that Matters. It also
Diagnostic Tests, Not all summaries provides "Bottom Line” for each
5 13
Calculators, and ICD-9 with graded evidence EBM topics
3 6
Quality assessment scores 8/10
N.Torabi - Allyn & Betty Taylor Library - Last update : January 22, 2013 Page 2 of 5

3. Point of care tools comparison chart
2013
eMedicine Online, WebMD Including expert No It covers across more than 30 The policy is no The policy is not very Individual
(Medscape) Mobile LLC. knowledge in 63 medical specialties. Peer- clear clear. authors, their
App, specialty areas covering reviewed disease summaries; Low Evidence- HR of 0.05 when credentials and
8
Free 7,000 diseases and multimedia files, clinical tools Based Methodology compared to DynaMed affiliations are
4
disorders. More than and differential diagnosis Score listed.
5
6,300 evidence-based information.
and physician-reviewed Covers GPs and other health
.4
disease and condition care professionals
articles are organized to Intent to provide
4
answer clinical Recommendations
14 6
questions. Quality assessment scores 4/10
Epocrates Online, Epocrates, It organizes practical, Not all summaries have BMJ Point of Care provides the The policy is no The policy is not very Individual
Essentials , Mobile Inc peer-reviewed content. graded evidence
3
disease content for Epocrates
15
clear clear. authors, their
/ Epocrates App Treatment credentials and
Online recommendations for affiliations are
Premium common and listed.
4
uncommon infections,
Detailed lab
15
monographs.
16
First Online, MD Consult A collection of Rating system derived Each topic includes summary, Low Evidence- The policy is not clear . Individual
Consult Mobile resource for health care from those produced background, diagnostic, Based Methodology authors, their
4
App professionals, providing by the American therapeutic, outcomes-related, Score credentials and
access to the latest in Academy of Family and prevention information, as affiliations are
4
evaluation, diagnosis, Physicians and the US well as the evidence and listed.
management, outcomes, Agency for references which support
5
and prevention at the Healthcare Policy and recommendations.
5 4
point and time of care. Research Covers GPs, specialists
16
Classification . Intent to provide
4
Not all summaries Recommendations
N.Torabi - Allyn & Betty Taylor Library - Last update : January 22, 2013 Page 3 of 5

4. Point of care tools comparison chart
2013
6
have graded Quality assessment scores 8/10
3
evidence
UpToDate Online, UpToDate, A comprehensive 2 level grading Contains all of the internal High Evidence- Daily updated. Topics Individual
17
Mobile Inc synthesis of the system . medicine subspecialties (at a Based Methodology in UpToDate are revised authors, their
4
friendly evidence followed by Not all summaries have level that meets the needs of the Score whenever important credentials and
3
website recommendations that graded evidence subspecialist), all of primary new information is affiliations are
4
can be acted on at the care, internal medicine, ob/gyn, http://www.uptoda published, not listed.
.5
point of care pediatrics, general surgery, and te.com/home/edito according to any
more rial-policy specific time schedule.
Intent to provide “Practice Changing
4
Recommendations Updates” section
6
Quality assessment scores 8/10 highlights important
and practice-changing
18
updates.
HR of 0.14 when
8
compared to DynaMed
1
Point of care tools are those reference resources that a clinician or health care professional can utilize immediately at the point-of-care at the bedside. Those resources which only provide
structured abstracts or systematic reviews, or act as literature surveillance are not included here. Also, the resources providing only drug information are excluded.
2
Evidence-Based Clinical Content in ACP PIER, Use Guide. available at http://www.statref.com/resources/PDFs/SROnline/PIERUserGuide.pdf
3
Shurtz, S., & Foster, M. J. (2011). Developing and using a rubric for evaluating evidence-based medicine point-of-care tools. Journal of the Medical Library Association: JMLA, 99(3), 247.
4
Banzi, R., Liberati, A., Moschetti, I., Tagliabue, L., & Moja, L. (2010). A review of online evidence-based practice point-of-care information summary providers. Journal of medical Internet
research, 12(3). http://www.jmir.org/article/viewFile/jmir_v12i3e26/2
5
EBM Resources Comparison Chart. Duke University Medical Centre Library and Archive. Program on Teaching Evidence-Based Practice available at
http://eno.duhs.duke.edu/sites/eno.duhs.duke.edu/files/public/guides/ebmchart.pdf
N.Torabi - Allyn & Betty Taylor Library - Last update : January 22, 2013 Page 4 of 5

5. Point of care tools comparison chart
2013
6
Prorok, J. C., Iserman, E. C., Wilczynski, N. L., & Haynes, R. B. (2012). The quality, breadth, and timeliness of content updating vary substantially for 10 online medical texts: an analytic survey.
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology.
7
Nuts, bolts, and tiny little screws: how Clinical Evidence works. Available at http://clinicalevidence.bmj.com/x/set/static/cms/nuts-and-bolts.html
8
Banzi, R., Cinquini, M., Liberati, A., Moschetti, I., Pecoraro, V., Tagliabue, L., & Moja, L. (2011). Speed of updating online evidence based point of care summaries: prospective cohort analysis.
BMJ: British Medical Journal, 343.
9
Level of Evidence. available at https://dynamed.ebscohost.com/content/LOE
10
EBM Guidelines about this database http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/book/10.1002/0470057203
11
EBM Guidelines user guide http://tinyurl.com/bbabq59
12
Essential Evidence Plus; Levels of evidence available at http://www.essentialevidenceplus.com/product/ebm_loe.cfm
13
Essential Evidence Plus; Resources & Tools available at http://www.essentialevidenceplus.com/product/features_ir.cfm
14
Medscape Reference available at http://reference.medscape.com/
15
Epocrates clinical content available at http://www.epocrates.com/clinical/sources
16
First Consult FAQ available at http://www.mdconsult.com/helpfiles/webhelp/faq/frequently_asked_questions.htm#First_Consult
17
UpTODate: Grading guide available at http://www.uptodate.com/home/grading-guide
18
UpTODate: Editorial Policy available at http://www.uptodate.com/home/editorial-policy
Disclaimer: The purpose of this chart is to provide some general information about several top point-of-care resources in the medical field. This information should not be considered complete.
We do not endorse any particular POC resources. The information gathered here by a literature review. Those articles that used bibliometric analysis are included. The articles which their
methodology were solely based on user-centred analysis (i.e. medical community survey about the popularity of particular tools) are excluded to minimize risk of bias. If information about
particular aspect of a POC was not obtained from the literature review, the editorial policy from their perspective website was cited.
N.Torabi - Allyn & Betty Taylor Library - Last update : January 22, 2013 Page 5 of 5