Journal of the Medical Library Association最新文献

Objective: To understand the performance of EndNote 20 and Zotero 6's full text retrieval features.

Methods: Using the University of York's subscriptions, we tested and compared EndNote and Zotero's full text retrieval. 1,000 records from four evidence synthesis projects were tested for the number of: full texts retrieved; available full texts retrieved; unique full texts (found by one program only); and differences in versions of full texts for the same record. We also tested the time taken and accuracy of retrieved full texts. One dataset was tested multiple times to confirm if the number of full texts retrieved was consistent. We also investigated the available full texts missed by EndNote or Zotero by: reference type; whether full texts were available open access or via subscription; and the content provider.

Results: EndNote retrieved 47% of available full texts versus 52% by Zotero. Zotero was faster by 2 minutes 15 seconds. Each program found unique full texts. There were differences in full text versions retrieved between programs. For both programs, 99% of the retrieved full texts were accurate. Zotero was less consistent in the number of full texts it retrieved.

Conclusion: EndNote and Zotero do not find all available full texts. Users should not assume full texts are correct; are the version of record; or that records without full texts cannot be retrieved manually. Repeating the full text retrieval process multiple times could yield additional full texts. Users with access to EndNote and Zotero could use both for full text retrieval.

Background: Involving librarians as team members can lead to better quality in reviews. To improve their search results, an international diabetes project involved two medical librarians in a large-scale project planning of a series of systematic reviews for clinical guidelines in diabetes precision medicine.

Case presentation: The precision diabetes project was divided into teams. Four diabetes mellitus types (type 1, type 2, gestational, and monogenic) were divided into teams focusing on diagnostics, prevention, treatment, or prognostics. A search consultation plan was set up for the project to help organize the work. We performed searches in Embase and PubMed for 14 teams, building complex searches that involved non-traditional search strategies. Our search strategies generated very large amounts of records that created challenges in balancing sensitivity with precision. We also performed overlap searches for type 1 and type 2 diabetes search strategies; and assisted in setting up reviews in the Covidence tool for screening.

Conclusions: This project gave us opportunities to test methods we had not used before, such as overlap comparisons between whole search strategies. It also gave us insights into the complexity of performing a search balancing sensitivity and specificity and highlights the need for a clearly defined communication plan for extensive evidence synthesis projects.

Professional associations provide resources to support members' career development and facilitate ways for members to engage with and learn from one another. This article describes Medical Library Association (MLA) activities related to the revision of professional competencies and the restructuring of the organization's communities during the past twenty-five years. Grounded in MLA's Platform for Change, the MLA competency statement underwent two revisions with core themes remaining consistent. Major efforts went into rethinking the structure of MLA communities, and it became a strategic goal of the association. Numerous groups spent considerable time guiding the changes in MLA's community structure. Sections and special interest groups were transformed into caucuses. Domain hubs were established to facilitate project coordination across caucuses and create more leadership opportunities for MLA members, but their implementation did not meet expectations. Member engagement and leadership are ongoing challenges for MLA. The next twenty-five years will undoubtedly see additional revisions to the competencies and continued iterations of the community structure.

Objective: The objective of this study was to evaluate the discoverability of supporting research materials, including supporting documents, individual participant data (IPD), and associated publications, in US federally funded COVID-19 clinical study records in ClinicalTrials.gov (CTG).

Methods: Study registration records were evaluated for (1) links to supporting documents, including protocols, informed consent forms, and statistical analysis plans; (2) information on how unaffiliated researchers may access IPD and, when applicable, the linking of the IPD record back to the CTG record; and (3) links to associated publications and, when applicable, the linking of the publication record back to the CTG record.

Results: 206 CTG study records were included in the analysis. Few records shared supporting documents, with only 4% of records sharing all 3 document types. 27% of records indicated they intended to share IPD, with 45% of these providing sufficient information to request access to the IPD. Only 1 dataset record was located, which linked back to its corresponding CTG record. The majority of CTG records did not have links to publications (61%), and only 21% linked out to at least 1 results publication. All publication records linked back to their corresponding CTG records.

Conclusion: With only 4% of records sharing all supporting document types, 12% sufficient information to access IPD, and 21% results publications, improvements can be made to the discoverability of research materials in federally funded, COVID-19 CTG records. Sharing these materials on CTG can increase their discoverability, therefore increasing the validity, transparency, and reusability of clinical research.

Objective: To determine if librarian collaboration was associated with improved database search quality, search reproducibility, and systematic review reporting in otolaryngology systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

Methods: In this retrospective cross-sectional study, PubMed was queried for systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in otolaryngology journals in 2010, 2015, and 2021. Two researchers independently extracted data. Two librarians independently rated search strategy reproducibility and quality for each article. The main outcomes include association of librarian involvement with study reporting quality, search quality, and publication metrics in otolaryngology systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Categorical data were compared with Chi-Squared tests or Fisher's Exact tests. Continuous variables were compared via Mann Whitney U Tests for two groups, and Kruskal-Wallis Tests for three or more groups.

Results: Of 559 articles retrieved, 505 were analyzed. More studies indicated librarian involvement in 2021 (n=72, 20.7%) compared to 2015 (n=14, 10.4%) and 2010 (n=2, 9.0%) (p=0.04). 2021 studies showed improvements in properly using a reporting tool (p<0.001), number of databases queried (p<0.001), describing date of database searches (p<0.001), and including a flow diagram (p<0.001). Librarian involvement was associated with using reporting tools (p<0.001), increased number of databases queried (p<0.001), describing date of database search (p=0.002), mentioning search peer reviewer (p=0.02), and reproducibility of search strategies (p<0.001). For search strategy quality, librarian involvement was associated with greater use of "Boolean & proximity operators" (p=0.004), "subject headings" (p<0.001), "text word searching" (p<0.001), and "spelling/syntax/line numbers" (p<0.001). Studies with librarian involvement were associated with publication in journals with higher impact factors for 2015 (p=0.003) and 2021 (p<0.001).

Conclusion: Librarian involvement was associated with improved reporting quality and search strategy quality. Our study supports the inclusion of librarians in review teams, and journal editing and peer reviewing teams.

Objective: In this paper we report how the United Kingdom's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) search filters for treating and managing COVID-19 were validated for use in MEDLINE (Ovid) and Embase (Ovid). The objective was to achieve at least 98.9% for recall and 64% for precision.

Methods: We did two tests of recall to finalize the draft search filters. We updated the data from an earlier peer-reviewed publication for the first recall test. For the second test, we collated a set of systematic reviews from Epistemonikos COVID-19 L.OVE and extracted their primary studies. We calculated precision by screening all the results retrieved by the draft search filters from a targeted sample covering 2020-23. We developed a gold-standard set to validate the search filter by using all articles available from the "Treatment and Management" subject filter in the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register.

Results: In the first recall test, both filters had 99.5% recall. In the second test, recall was 99.7% and 99.8% in MEDLINE and Embase respectively. Precision was 91.1% in a deduplicated sample of records. In validation, we found the MEDLINE filter had recall of 99.86% of the 14,625 records in the gold-standard set. The Embase filter had 99.88% recall of 19,371 records.

Conclusion: We have validated search filters to identify records on treating and managing COVID-19. The filters may require subsequent updates, if new SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern or interest are discussed in future literature.

On the occasion of the Medical Library Association's 125th Anniversary, four librarian leaders with a combined 105 years of engagement in MLA collaborated to reflect on the changes in our profession and our association. We draw on an examination of the last 25 years of the MLA Janet Doe Lectures, our own personal histories, and scholarship we produced for MLA publications and presentations. We offer this compilation as an invitation for readers to reflect on their experiences of changes within the profession, inspiration to engage in the issues around our place in society, and a source for additional exploration into researching and learning from our collective history.

There is a 17-year gap between the publication of research which proves an intervention is efficacious and effective and the implementation of that same intervention into practice [1]. In behavioral health, only 14% of successful interventions are integrated into actual practice [2]. As such, Implementation Science is envisioned to address the research to practice gap. This research methodology becomes important as it looks to investigate how to get interventions to become embedded in practice and de-implement unproven or disproven interventions that may be harmful and/or ineffective for patients. The aim of this commentary is to raise awareness of health sciences librarians/information specialists about this research arena and encourage health sciences librarians to envision how they could be involved in implementation science projects and teams or even use implementation science in their practice.