Rosanne
I am am not sure this would work, but if wanting to record/track search
terms in PubMed and using related terms links, you could note the initial
search term and then the URL for each link.
Andrew Jull
Clinical Nurse Consultant
Auckland Hospital
Private Bag 92024
Auckland
NEW ZEALAND
Phone: +64 9 3797440
Fax:+64 9 3072818 (external)
7718 (internal)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rod Jackson [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Thursday, 27 January 2000 14:42
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Cc: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re[2]: Users' Guides to CATs on the WWW
>
> Rosanne - while the term CAPs is more correct, it doesn't have the same
> ring to it as CATs and fat CATs and I would strongly advise against
> changing the term. This may seem a minor issue but I believe that the
> term
> CAT has caught on in part because of the word itself (no RCT evidence for
> this). I plaster pictures of cats over my CAT notes. I only introduced
> CATs
> into medical student teaching 2 years ago and it is amazing how quickly it
> has spread to registrars and senior clinicians.
>
> Rod Jackson
>
> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
> >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> >Content-Description: "cc:Mail Note Part"
> >
> > I agree- it's a neat project!
> >
> > Two more points/questions:
> >
> > 1) I think we should call them CAPs (critically assigned papers)
> > rather than CATS- the word "topics" suggests that more than one
> paper
> > has been reviewed
> >
> > 2) replicating search techniques has become difficult in these days
> of
> > PubMed and "see related articles"- after I find articles I find it
> > difficult to trace back the actual strategy - any suggestions for
> how
> > the search strategy can be found or how to write it up for
> > publication?
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Rosanne Leipzig
> >
> >
> >______________________________ Reply Separator
> >_________________________________
> >Subject: RE: Users' Guides to CATs on the WWW
> >Author: <[log in to unmask]> at SMTP-for-MSSM
> >Date: 01/25/2000 8:43 PM
> >
> >
> >I would add a couple of questions:
> >
> >1. How complete was the description of attaining the data upon which the
> >author(s) based the CAT?
> >2. Was the description of the search technique replicable?
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: [log in to unmask]
> >[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Rod
> >Jackson
> >Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2000 7:05 PM
> >To: [log in to unmask]
> >Cc: [log in to unmask]
> >Subject: Re: Users' Guides to CATs on the WWW
> >
> >
> >Dear Victor - this is a great initiative.
> >
> >I like your descriptions of a CAT (based on indiv papers/studies) and a
> big
> >fat CAT (systematic reviews, meta-analyses of papers) although why don't
> we
> >simply call the latter FAT CATs. Individuals CATs are the building
> blocks
> >of a FAT CAT.
> >
> >With regard to your users guide on CATs, I think you should consider
> >separating CATs from FAT CATs, at present they are mixed up. Under your A
> >questions, No.1 is relevant to both, No 2.and No. 3 are for FAT CATs, No.
> 4
> >is for CATs, etc. I also wonder whether your B questions are necessary.
> >Most busy clinicians will probably be able to complete CATs but FAT CATs
> are
> >more time comsuming, but one could imagine a group of clinicians doing
> >individual CATs then bringing them together as a FAT CAT.
> >
> >It would be beneficial to get the CAT/FAT CAT terminology into the
> general
> >clinical language, as the downside of many CATs is that they focus on
> >individual studies, yet one cannot build a FAT CAT unless the individual
> >CATs have already been completed.
> >
> >cheers Rod Jackson
> >
> > >Dear friends and colleagues,
> >>
> >>After almost a year, we are getting close to completing our evaluation
> of
> >>the CATs (critically appraised topics) currently available on the WWW.
> We
> >>want to contribute, at the end of our analysis, with a set "users'
> guides"
> >>to CATs on the Internet. These guides had to include validity criteria
> for
> >>systematic reviews (the big fat CAT) as well as criteria for health
> >>information on the web. The hybrid was challenged, torn, reconstructed,
> and
> >>destroyed several times. This is its current format (see below).
> >>
> >>I will appreciate comments from Internet information users, Users'
> guides
> >>authors, CAT authors, CAT site owners, and the list at large.
> >>
> >>Thanks a million for your input.
> >>
> >>Victor Montori, MD
> >>Mayo IM EBM Working Group
> >>Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
> >>[log in to unmask]
> >>
> >>Users' Guides to CAT-containing sites on the WWW
> >>A. Criteria for content, currency of information, and attribution and
> >>documentation of CATs on the Internet
> >>
> >>Is the CAT valid?
> >>1. Was the CAT focused by a well-built clinical question?
> >>2. Was an explicit and sensible process used to identify and
> >>select the
> >>evidence?
> >>3. Was the evidence appraised the best available to answer the
> >>question? Is it unlikely that relevant studies were missed?
> >>4. Were the appropriate validity criteria applied to the evidence
> >>appraised?
> >>5. Are all the dates clearly stated? Date of search, date of
> >>publication, date of expiration?
> >>
> >>What is the CAT's message?
> >>1. What is the CAT's message?
> >>2. How strong is the message?
> >>
> >>Will the CAT's message help me in my patient care?
> >>1. Can I apply the message in my patient care setting, to my
> >>patients?
> >>2. Were all clinically important outcomes, benefits, harms, and
> costs
> >>discussed?
> >>
> >>B. Criteria for authority of authors, disclosure of competing interests,
> >and
> >>feedback mechanism
> >>1. Is the academic or training level of the authors or
> commentators
> >>clearly stated?
> >>2. Have the authors, site developers, and sponsors disclose all
> >>competing interests?
> >>3. Is there a mechanism to contact the authors?
> >
> >
> >Rodney Jackson MBChB PhD FAFPHM
> >Professor of Epidemiology
> >Head of Department
> >Dpt of Community Health
> >Faculty of Medical & Health Sciences
> >University of Auckland
> >(Grafton Mews, 52-54 Grafton Rd)
> >Private Bag 92019
> >Auckland, New Zealand
> >Phone: +64 (0)9-3737599 ext 6343
> >Fax: +64 (0)9-3737494
> >e-mail: [log in to unmask]
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:RFC822.TXT (TEXT/MSIE) (000182ED)
>
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|