***TASK*** the task is to summarize an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***INPUT*** the input is a biomedical literature 
    ***OUTPUT*** the output is the summary of an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***DOCUMENTATION*** 
    ***EXAMPLES*** 
    Input: The current evidence -based practice ( EBP ) movement in healthcare emphasizes that clinical decision making should be based on the " best evidence " available , preferably the findings of r and omized clinical trials . Within this context qualitative research findings are considered to have little value and the old debate in nursing has been re-ignited related to whether qualitative versus quantitative research findings provides the best empirical evidence for nursing practice . In response to this crisis qualitative scholars have been called upon by leaders in the field to clarify for outsiders what qualitative research is and to be more explicit in pointing out the utility of qualitative research findings . In addition , attention to " quality " in qualitative research has been identified as an area worthy of renewed focus . Within this paper two key problems related to addressing these issues are review ed : disagreement not only among " outsiders " but also some nursing scholars related to the definition of " qualitative research " , and a lack of consensus related how to best address " rigor " in this type of inquiry . Based on this review a set of st and ard requirements for qualitative research published in nursing journals is proposed that reflects a uniform definition of qualitative research and an enlarged yet clearly articulated conceptualization of quality . The approach suggested provides a framework for developing and evaluating qualitative research that would have both defensible scholarly merit and heuristic value . This will help solidify the argument in favor of incorporating qualitative research findings as part of the empirical " evidence " upon which evidence -based nursing is founded This is a prospect i ve study of clinical questions generated in primary care consultations and a comparison of two approaches to answering those clinical questions . Twenty-one doctors in a university-based primary care clinic su bmi tted 78 clinical questions arising from patient consultations during 24 clinic days ( 0.01 question per patient encounter ) . These doctors subsequently found answers to 40 % of their questions but were satisfied with only 67 % of these answers . The investigators were able to provide answers for 95 % of the questions asked and the doctors rated these answers as satisfactory in 86 % of instances . Answers obtained by investigators had significantly higher satisfaction score than those obtained by doctors ' search ( p = 0.002 ) . The two main findings of this study are ( 1 ) almost all questions arising in clinic setting could be answered by intensive search ; ( 2 ) answers found by intensive search es were judged to be more satisfactory than those found routinely by doctors . Provision of an information retrieval service in addition to training in the search ing and appraisal of medical literature are possible solutions to the information needs of busy clinicians BACKGROUND No professional society or group recommends routine ovarian cancer screening , yet physicians ' enthusiasm for several cancer screening tests before benefit has been proven suggests that some women may be exposed to potential harms . OBJECTIVE To provide nationally representative estimates of physicians ' reported nonadherence to recommendations against ovarian cancer screening . DESIGN Cross-sectional survey of physicians offering women 's primary care . The 12-page question naire contained a woman 's annual examination vignette and questions about offers or orders for transvaginal ultrasonography ( TVU ) and cancer antigen 125 ( CA-125 ) . SETTING United States . PARTICIPANTS 3200 physicians r and omly sample d equally from the 2008 American Medical Association Physician Masterfile lists of family physicians , general internists , and obstetrician-gynecologists ; 61.7 % responded . After exclusions , 1088 respondents were included ; their responses were weighted to represent the specialty distribution of practicing U.S. physicians nationally . MEASUREMENTS Reported nonadherence to screening recommendations ( defined as sometimes or almost always ordering screening TVU or CA-125 or both ) . RESULTS Twenty-eight percent ( 95 % CI , 24.5 % to 32.9 % ) of physicians reported nonadherence to screening recommendations for women at low risk for ovarian cancer ; 65.4 % ( CI , 61.1 % to 69.4 % ) did so for women at medium risk for ovarian cancer . Six percent ( CI , 4.4 % to 8.9 % ) reported routinely ordering or offering  ovarian cancer screening  for low-risk women , as did 24.0 % ( CI , 20.5 % to 28.0 % ) for medium-risk women ( P ≤ 0.001 ) . Thirty-three percent believed TVU or CA-125 was an effective screening test . In adjusted analysis , actual and physician-perceived patient risk , patient request for ovarian cancer screening , and physician belief that TVU or CA-125 was an effective screening test were the strongest predictors of physician-reported nonadherence to published recommendations . LIMITATION The results are limited by their reliance on survey methods ; there may be respondent-nonrespondent bias . CONCLUSION One in 3 physicians believed that ovarian cancer screening was effective , despite evidence to the contrary . Substantial proportions of physicians reported routinely offering or ordering ovarian cancer screening , thereby exposing women to the documented risks of these tests . PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Cancer Institute BACKGROUND Unlike reduced mortality rates , improved survival rates and increased early detection do not prove that cancer screening tests save lives . Nevertheless , these 2 statistics are often used to promote screening . OBJECTIVE To learn whether primary care physicians underst and which statistics provide evidence about whether screening saves lives . DESIGN Parallel-group , r and omized trial ( r and omization controlled for order effect only ) , conducted by Internet survey . ( Clinical Trials.gov registration number : NCT00981019 ) SETTING National sample of U.S. primary care physicians from a research panel maintained by Harris Interactive ( 79 % cooperation rate ) . PARTICIPANTS 297 physicians who practice d both inpatient and outpatient medicine were surveyed in 2010 , and 115 physicians who practice d exclusively outpatient medicine were surveyed in 2011 . INTERVENTION Physicians received scenarios about the effect of 2 hypothetical screening tests : The effect was described as improved 5-year survival and increased early detection in one scenario and as decreased cancer mortality and increased incidence in the other . MEASUREMENTS Physicians ' recommendation of screening  and perception of its benefit in the scenarios and general knowledge of screening statistics . RESULTS Primary care physicians were more enthusiastic about the screening test supported by irrelevant evidence ( 5-year survival increased from 68 % to 99 % ) than about the test supported by relevant evidence ( cancer mortality reduced from 2 to 1.6 in 1000 persons ) . When presented with irrelevant evidence , 69 % of physicians recommended the test , compared with 23 % when presented with relevant evidence ( P < 0.001 ) . When asked general knowledge questions about screening statistics , many physicians did not distinguish between irrelevant and relevant screening evidence ; 76 % versus 81 % , respectively , stated that each of these statistics proves that screening saves lives ( P = 0.39 ) . About one half ( 47 % ) of the physicians incorrectly said that finding more cases of cancer in screened as opposed to unscreened population s " proves that screening saves lives . " LIMITATION Physicians ' recommendations for screening were based on hypothetical scenarios , not actual practice . CONCLUSION Most primary care physicians mistakenly interpreted improved survival and increased detection with screening as evidence that screening saves lives . Few correctly recognized that only reduced mortality in a r and omized trial constitutes evidence of the benefit of screening . PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE Harding Center for Risk Literacy , Max Planck Institute for Human Development OBJECTIVE Usage of computer re sources at the point of care has a positive effect on physician decision making . Pediatricians ' information-seeking behaviors are not well characterized . The goal of this study was to characterize quantitatively the information-seeking behaviors of general pediatricians and specifically compare their use of computers , including digital libraries , before and after an educational intervention . METHODS General pediatric residents and faculty at a US Midwest children 's hospital participated . A control ( year 1 ) versus intervention group ( year 2 ) research design was implemented . Eligible pediatrician pools overlapped , such that some participated first in the control group and later as part of the intervention . The intervention group received a 10-minute individual training session and h and out on how to use a pediatric digital library to answer professional questions . A general medical digital library was also available . Pediatricians in both the control and the intervention groups were surveyed using the critical incident technique during 2 6-month time periods . Both groups were telephoned for 1- to 2-minute interviews and were asked , " What pediatric question ( s ) did you have that you needed additional information to answer ? " The main outcome measures were the differences between the proportion of pediatricians who use computers and digital libraries and a comparison of the number of times that pediatricians use these re sources before and after intervention . RESULTS A total of 58 pediatricians were eligible , and 52 participated ( 89.6 % ) . Participant demographics between control ( N = 41 ; 89.1 % ) and intervention ( N = 31 ; 70.4 % ) were not statistically different . Twenty pediatricians were in both groups . Pediatricians were slightly less likely to pursue answers after the intervention ( 94.7 % vs 89.2 % ) ; the primary reason cited for both groups was a lack of time . The pediatricians were as successful in finding answers in each group ( 95.7 % vs 92.7 % ) , but the intervention group took significantly less time ( 8.3 minutes vs 19.6 minutes ) . After the intervention , pediatricians used computers and digital libraries more to answer their questions and spent less time using them . CONCLUSION This study showed higher rates of physician questions pursued and answered and higher rates of computer use at baseline and after intervention compared with previous studies . Pediatricians who seek answers at the point of care therefore should begin to shift their information-seeking behaviors toward computer re sources , as they are as effective but more time-efficient OBJECTIVE To measure the effects of a summary -of- findings ( SoF ) table on user satisfaction , underst and ing , and time spent finding key results in a Cochrane review . STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING We r and omized participants in an evidence -based practice workshop ( r and omized controlled trial [ RCT ] I ) and a Cochrane Collaboration entities meeting ( RCT II ) to receive a Cochrane review with or without an SoF table .  In RCT I , we measured user satisfaction . In RCT II , we measured correct comprehension and time spent finding key results . RESULTS RCT I : Participants with the SoF table ( n=47 ) were more likely to " agree " or " strongly agree " that it was easy to find results for important outcomes than ( n=25 ) participants without the SoF table-68 % vs. 40 % ( P=0.021 ) . RCT II : Participants with the SoF table ( n=18 ) were more likely to correctly answer two questions regarding results than ( n=15 ) those without the SoF table : 93 % vs. 44 % ( P=0.003 ) and 87 % vs. 11 % ( P<0.001 ) . Participants with the SoF table spent an average of 90 seconds to find key information compared with 4 minutes for participants without the SoF table ( P=0.002 ) . CONCLUSION In two small trials , we found that inclusion of an SoF table in a review improved underst and ing and rapid retrieval of key findings compared with review s with no SoF table RATIONALE AND AIM Over the past 12 years , thous and s of authors working with the Cochrane Collaboration around the world have produced systematic review s to reduce uncertainty in health care decision making . We evaluated the conclusions from Cochrane systematic review s of r and omized controlled trials in terms of their recommendations for clinical practice and research . METHODS In our cross-sectional study of systematic review s published in the Cochrane Library , we r and omly selected and analysed completed systematic review s published across all 50 Cochrane Collaborative Review Groups . RESULTS We analysed 1016 completed systematic review s. Of these , 44 % concluded that the interventions studied were likely to be beneficial , of which 1 % recommended no further research and 43 % recommended additional research . Also , 7 % of the review s concluded that the interventions were likely to be harmful , of which 2 % did not recommend further studies and 5 % recommended additional studies . In total , 49 % of the review s reported that the evidence did not support either benefit or harm , of which 1 % did not recommend further studies and 48 % recommended additional studies . Overall , 96 % of the review s recommended further research . CONCLUSIONS Cochrane systematic review s were about evenly split between those in which the authors concluded that at least one of the interventions was beneficial and those in which the evidence neither supported nor refuted the intervention tested . The Cochrane Collaboration needs to include clinical trial protocol summaries with a study design optimized to answer the relevant research questions 
    Output:
    
Finding information relating to the number of studies in the meta- analysis , and locating the number of studies in the entire systematic review were revealed as areas needing attention during the usability evaluation .
Iterative testing combined with a multifaceted approach to usability testing offered essential insight into aspects of the prototypes that required modifications .