This paper is in the following e-collection/theme issue:

Letters (85) Evidence-based Practice and Medicine (22)

Published on in Vol 12, No 3 (2010): Jul-Sep

Review of Online Evidence-based Practice Point-of-Care Information Summary Providers: Authors’ Reply to the Response by the Publisher of DynaMed

Review of Online Evidence-based Practice Point-of-Care Information Summary Providers: Authors’ Reply to the Response by the Publisher of DynaMed

Review of Online Evidence-based Practice Point-of-Care Information Summary Providers: Authors’ Reply to the Response by the Publisher of DynaMed

Authors of this article:

Rita Banzi1 ;   Alessandro Liberati1, 2 ;   Ivan Moschetti1 ;   Ludovica Tagliabue3 ;   Lorenzo Moja1
Article Authors Cited by Tweetations Metrics

    Letter

    1Italian Cochrane Centre, Mario Negri Institute for Pharmacological Research, Milan, Italy

    2University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy

    3University of Milan, Milan, Italy

    Corresponding Author:

    Rita Banzi

    Italian Cochrane Centre Mario Negri Institute

    Via La Masa 19

    Milan, 20159

    Italy

    Phone: 39 0239014671

    Fax:39 023559048

    Email: banzi@marionegri.it


    Related ArticleComment on: Alper BS. Review of Online Evidence-based Practice Point-of-Care Information Summary Providers: Response by the Publisher of DynaMed. J Med Internet Res. 2010 Sep 09;12(3) p. e39 http://www.jmir.org/2010/3/e39/

    We are pleased that the publisher of DynaMed clarified his evidence-based methodology in response to our review. We stress again how good reporting is a prerequisite for transparency. This lesson comes from the reporting of research findings but its extension to the development of information sources should be considered.

    J Med Internet Res 2010;12(3):e40

    doi:10.2196/jmir.1626


    We thank Dr. Alper for his comment in response to our review [1], which gives us the opportunity to stress again how essential good reporting is for transparency. This lesson comes from the reporting of research findings, but its extension to the development of information sources should be considered.

    Methodologic quality is closely intertwined with the quality of reporting [2]. Lack of details on how research (or in this case: editorial processes) is conducted leads users to assume that the quality was inadequate, unless information to the contrary is provided (the “guilty until proven innocent” approach) [3]. This is often justified because faulty reporting generally reflects faulty methods [4, 5].

    We appreciate that the editor of DynaMed (which is a “blockbuster” in the point-of-care information service market) shows the willingness to improve the explicitness and transparency of their methodology. A clear reference on the freely accessible website pages helps users and purchasers to better understand the value of the product.

    It is reassuring when well-known and leading publishers do not take for granted their value. Reputation itself is no guarantee for quality. We hope that other publishers will be equally transparent and responsive to criticism.

    Conflicts of Interest

    None declared

    1. Banzi R, Liberati A, Moschetti I, Tagliabue L, Moja L. A review of online evidence-based practice point-of-care information summary providers. J Med Internet Res 2010;12(3):e26 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    2. Huwiler-Müntener K, Jüni P, Junker C, Egger M. Quality of reporting of randomized trials as a measure of methodologic quality. JAMA 2002 Jun 5;287(21):2801-2804 [FREE Full text] [Medline]
    3. Jüni P, Altman DG, Egger M. Systematic reviews in health care: Assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials. BMJ 2001 Jul 7;323(7303):42-46 [FREE Full text] [Medline]
    4. Liberati A, Himel HN, Chalmers TC. A quality assessment of randomized control trials of primary treatment of breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 1986 Jun;4(6):942-951. [Medline]
    5. Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, Altman DG. Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA 1995 Feb 1;273(5):408-412. [Medline]

    Edited by G Eysenbach; This is a non–peer-reviewed article. submitted 02.08.10; accepted 08.08.10; published 09.09.10

    Copyright

    ©Rita Banzi, Alessandro Liberati, Ivan Moschetti, Ludovica Tagliabue, Lorenzo Moja. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (http://www.jmir.org), 09.09.2010  

    This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on http://www.jmir.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.