Entries in Articles (39)


Skills for Successful Collaboration

Sci Technol Libr (New York, NY). 2013;32(2):160-175.

Librarians as Part of Cross-Disciplinary, Multi-Institutional Team Projects: Experiences from the VIVO Collaboration.

Garcia-Milian R, Norton HF, Auten B, Davis VI, Holmes KL, Johnson M, Tennant MR.

Cross-disciplinary, team-based collaboration is essential for addressing today's complex research questions, and librarians are increasingly entering into suchcollaborations. This study identifies skills needed as librarians integrate into cross-disciplinary teams, based on the experiences of librarians involved in the development and implementation of VIVO, a research discovery and collaboration platform. Participants discussed the challenges, skills gained, and lessons learned throughout the project. Their responses were analyzed in the light of the science of team science literature, and factors affecting collaboration on the VIVO team were identified. Skills in inclusive thinking, communication, perseverance, adaptability, and leadership were found to be essential.

PMCID: PMC3700548 [Available on 2014/6/14]
PMID: 23833333



Are systematic reviews up-to-date at the time of publication?

PMCID: PMC3674908

From the discussion:

Of the 90% of our 300 systematic reviews that provided a date of search, the median time from last search to publication was 8.0 months. This is an improvement over the results reported in 2008 where the median time was around 14 months [10]. However, the distribution in our study was skewed, with around 10% of reviews having a last search date to publication time of more than 18 months. Since reviews can date rapidly [8], this delay is important to users of reviewers.

For a reader searching for an up-to-date review, the relevant date is that of the last search not the date of publication, but this was provided in only 47% of abstracts. Hence readers would need to check, and possibly purchase, the full text to determine recency. Similarly, readers may wish to know the list of databases searched to assess completeness of the review, but this was missing from 40% of abstracts.

The time from search to publication can be usefully compared with the half-life of a review’s conclusions. One analysis of 100 systematic reviews found the half-life was 5.5 years until there was a change in the clinical conclusions of a review [8]. That analysis also found that 7% of reviews were out of date on the day of publication. That is, new research that changed the clinical conclusions was published between the date of search and the date of publication. This is consistent with our finding of a median time from last search to publication delay of 8.0 months.

We found no previous studies on the reporting of dates in abstracts, but several studies have examined the search dates and other items in the full text of reviews. An analysis of 65 Cochrane reviews found that 91% reported the years searched, but only 11% gave the date of last search [13]. Similarly, a study of 297 systematic reviews found that 70% reported the dates covered by the search, and 77% gave the end date of search, but these were better reported in Cochrane reviews (83% and 91%, respectively) than in non-Cochrane reviews (60% and 67%, respectively) [14].

Beller EM, Chen JK, Wang UL, Glasziou PP. Are systematic reviews up-to-date at the time of publication? Syst Rev. 2013 May 28;2:36. doi: 10.1186/2046-4053-2-36. PMCID: PMC3674908.


User Satisfaction With EHRs

Was just talking about EHR usability with a colleague.  From the ACP:

“Dissatisfaction is increasing regardless of practice type or EHR system,” said Michael S. Barr, MD, MBA, FACP, who leads ACP's Medical Practice, Professionalism & Quality division. “These findings highlight the need for the Meaningful Use program and EHR manufacturers to focus on improving EHR features and usability to help reduce inefficient work flows, improve error rates and patient care, and for practices to recognize the importance of ongoing training at all stages of EHR adoption.”

The findings are from 4,279 responses to multiple surveys developed and analyzed by ACP and AmericanEHR Partners between March 2010 and December 2012. Of the clinicians who responded to the surveys, 71 percent were in practices of 10 physicians or less and 82 percent of respondents intend to participate in Meaningful Use incentive programs, up from 65 percent in 2010.



The Value of Library and Information Services in Patient Care: Results of a Multisite Study

From JMLA.  Key findings: 

  • Library and information resources were perceived as valuable, and the information obtained was seen as having an impact on patient care.
  • Electronic access to information resources from multiple locations has increased the ability of health professionals to use these resources for improved patient care.
  • The roles of librarians are diversifying to include management of electronic resources, user instruction and support, specialized research and clinical information search services, and involvement in institution-level quality improvement.
  • It is possible to conduct a large-scale, multisite study on the value and impact of library services on patient care.

    re: Clinical Queries

    Searchers can be assured that the clinical queries for therapy, diagnosis, prognosis, etiology, and clinical prediction guides perform equally well in detecting relevant, methodologically sound studies in the current publishing years as they did when they were derived over a decade ago in the publishing year 2000.

    JAMIA study.  From the group responsible for creating the filters.   

    [via coworkers]

    Wilczynski NL, McKibbon KA, Walter SD, Garg AX, Haynes RB. (2013). MEDLINE clinical queries are robust when searching in recent publishing years. JAMIA, 20(2), 363-8. PMID 23019242.