Table 2.1 Guides for assessing medical texts for evidence-based features Criterion 1. “In line references” for treatment recommendations In line = references that are in the text nextto individual declarations 2. “In line references” for diagnostic recommendations 0 None or few 0 None or few 0 Absent 0 Absent 5. Policy indicating the grading of strength ofrecommendations (“grades of recommendations”) 6. Date stamping of individual chapters Should be at the beginning or end of each chapter 7. Indication of a schedule for updating chaptersShould be at the start of each chapter or in “About” 8. “New evidence” tabs for individual chapters/topics Could be called “updates”, “best new evidence”, etc. 9. User alerts for newevidence according to user discipline Can users sign up for alerts for updates for specific disciplines (e.g., primary care; cardiology)? 10. User alerts for new evidence according toindividual topic Can users sign up for new evidence alerts for specific topics (e.g., diabetes; warts; hypertension)? 11. Federated search of content and external evidence sourceSimultaneous search of several identified evidencebased sources 0 Absent 0 Absent 0 Absent 0 Absent 0 Absent 0 Absent 0 Absent Rating 1 Usually or always 1 Usually or always 1 Present 1 Present 1Present 1 Present 1 Present 1 Present 1 Present 1 Present 1 Present
3. Policy indicating steps by the editors/authors to find new evidence Likely to be found in the “About”information concerning the text 4. Policy indicating the quality rating of research evidence (“levels of evidence”)
©Health Information Research Unit, McMaster University. Contact: BrianHaynes, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org. Note: This survey is only for texts that are available online.
© Straus, Glasziou, Richardson, Haynes: Evidence-Based Medicine, 4th Edition.