DynaMed Plus (DMP) is the next-generation clinical reference tool physicians can rely on for fast, easy access to point-of-care decision support. With daily updates, DMP is the most current point-of-care, evidence-based resource available, and is designed to decrease time finding answers to clinical questions. It also provides a wealth of evidence-based information for researchers and medical trainees.
DynaMed Plus’ evidence-based contents are selected following strict protocols for:
(1) identifying evidence
(2) critically appraising the evidence
(3) selecting the best available evidence
(4) objectively reporting the evidence
(5) synthesizing multiple evidence reports
(6) drawing conclusions from the evidence.
Every article considered for inclusion in DynaMed Plus is evaluated and processed using this system, ensuring the integrity of the conclusions. Additionally, CME/CE/CPD credit can be earned simply by using DMP.
Various independent studies have ranked DynaMed Plus higher than other point-of-care reference resources in various independent studies published by the British Medical Journal 1, the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2, and the Journal of Medical Ethics 3.
The DynaMed Plus systematic literature surveillance process includes:
• Cover-to-cover surveillance of high-yield journals, such as BMJ, JAMA, Lancet, NEJM, and many others
• Targeted MEDLINE searches for systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials for high-yield journals
• Targeted MEDLINE searches for selected subject areas (e.g., complementary therapies)
• Comprehensive MEDLINE searches for guidelines
Other useful tools within DynaMed Plus are “Calculators” for Medical Equations, Clinical Criteria, Decision Trees, Statistics, Units and Dose Conversion, and others listed by specialty.
To Access DynaMed Plus, visit the Calder Library website and click on the dropdown under e-Databases. Sign up for a Personal Account to download the mobile app for convenient access from the office, hospital, or home.
1. Banzi R, Cinquini M, Liberati A, Moschetti I, et al. Speed of updating online evidence based point of care summaries: prospective cohort analysis. BMJ. 2011:343:d5856. doi: 10.1136/bmj.d5856.
2. Prorok JC, Iserman EC, Wilczynski NL, Haynes RB. The quality, breadth, and timeliness of content updating vary substantially for 10 online medical texts: an analytic survey. J Clin Epidemiol. 2012 Dec;65(12):1289-95. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.05.003. Epub 2012 Sep 10.
3. Amber KT, Dhiman G, Goodman KW. Conflict of interest in online point-of-care clinical support websites. J Med Ethics. 2014 Aug;40(8):578-80. doi:10.1136/medethics-2013-101625. Epub 2014 Feb 3.