Journal of the Medical Library Association最新文献

Objective: To evaluate tertiary drug information databases in terms of scope, consistency of content, and completeness of COVID-19 drug information.

Methods: Five electronic drug information databases: Clinical Pharmacology, Lexi-Drugs, AHFS DI (American Hospital Formulary Service Drug Information), eFacts and Comparisons, and Micromedex In-Depth Answers, were evaluated in this cross-sectional evaluation study, with data gathered from October 2021 through February 2022. Two study investigators independently extracted data (parallel extraction) from each resource. Descriptive statistics were primarily used to evaluate scope (i.e., whether the resource addresses use of the medication for treatment or prevention of COVID-19) and completeness of content (i.e., whether full information is provided related to the use of the medication for treatment or prevention of COVID-19) based on a 10-point scale. To analyze consistency among resources for scope, the Fleiss multi-rater kappa was used. To analyze consistency among resources for type of recommendation (i.e., in favor, insufficient evidence, against), a two-way mixed effects intraclass coefficient was calculated.

Results: A total of 46 drug monographs, including 3 vaccination monographs, were evaluated. Use of the agents for treatment of COVID-19 was most frequently addressed in Lexi-Drugs (73.9%), followed by eFacts and Comparisons (71.7%), and Micromedex (54.3%). The highest overall median completeness score was held by AHFS DI followed by Micromedex, and Clinical Pharmacology. There was moderate consistency in terms of scope (kappa 0.490, 95% CI 0.399-0.581, p<0.001) and recommendations (intraclass correlation coefficient 0.518, 95% CI 0.385-0.651, p<0.001).

Conclusion: Scope and completeness results varied by resource, with moderate consistency of content among resources.

While the Ebers Papyrus is understood to be one of the oldest and most complete contemporaneous perspectives on Ancient Egyptian healing practices, nothing has yet been said about the biography of its first English-language translator, Dr. Carl H. von Klein. A German immigrant and surgeon in the American Midwest, von Klein spent twenty-some years meticulously translating and annotating the Papyrus, but ultimately his manuscript was destroyed. In this paper, we examine the societal- and personal-scale forces that thwarted his efforts to transform our understanding of the history of medicine.

Objective: We sought to determine how the COVID-19 pandemic impacted academic health sciences library workshops. We hypothesized that health sciences libraries moved workshops online during the height of the pandemic and that they continued to offer workshops virtually after restrictions were eased. Additionally, we believed that attendance increased.

Methods: In March 2022, we invited 161 Association of American Health Sciences Libraries members in the US and Canada to participate in a Qualtrics survey about live workshops. Live workshops were defined as synchronous; voluntary; offered to anyone regardless of school affiliation; and not credit-bearing. Three time periods were compared, and a chi square test of association was conducted to evaluate the relationship between time period and workshop format.

Results: Seventy-two of 81 respondents offered live workshops. A chi square test of association indicated a significant association between time period and primary delivery method, chi-square (4, N=206) = 136.55, p< .005. Before March 2020, 77% of respondents taught in person. During the height of the pandemic, 91% taught online and 60% noted higher attendance compared to pre-pandemic numbers. During the second half of 2021, 65% of workshops were taught online and 43% of respondents felt that attendance was higher than it was pre-pandemic. Overall workshop satisfaction was unchanged (54%) or improved (44%).

Conclusion: Most health sciences librarians began offering online workshops following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. More than half of respondents were still teaching online in the second half of 2021. Some respondents reported increased attendance with similar levels of satisfaction.

Objective: The Core Clinical Journals (CCJ) list, produced by the U.S. National Library of Medicine (NLM), has been used by clinicians and librarians for half a century for two main purposes: narrowing a literature search to clinically useful journals and identifying high priority titles for library collections. After documentation of low usage of the existing CCJ, a review was undertaken to assess current validity, followed by an update to current clinical needs.

Methods: As the subject coverage of the 50-year-old list had never been evaluated, the CCJ committee began its innovative step-wise approach by analyzing the existing subject scope. To determine whether clinical subjects had changed over the last half-century, the committee collected data on journal usage in hospitals and medical facilities, adding journal usage from Morning Report blogs recording the journal article citations used by physicians and residents in response to clinical questions. Patient-driven high-frequency diagnoses and subjects added contextual data by depicting the clinical environment.

Results: The analysis identified a total of 80 subjects and selected 241 journals for the updated Clinical Journals filter, based on actual clinical utility of each journal.

Discussion: These data-driven methods created a different framework for evaluating the structure and content of this filter. It is the real-world evidence needed to highlight CCJ clinical impact and push clinically useful journals to first page results. Since the new process resulted in a new product, the name warrants a change from Core Clinical Journals (CCJ) to Clinically Useful Journals (CUJ). Therefore, the redesigned NLM Core Clinical Journals/AIM set from this point forward will be referred to as Clinically Useful Journals (CUJ). The evidence-based process used to reframe evaluation of the clinical impact and utility of biomedical journals is documented in this article.

Objective: This follow-up study aims to determine if and how the coverage of funding information in Web of Science Core Collection (WoS) and Scopus changed from 2015 to 2021.

Methods: The number of all funded articles published in 2021 was identified in WoS and Scopus bibliographic databases using bibliometric analysis on a sample of 52 prestigious medical journals.

Results: The analysis of the number of funded articles with funding information showed statistically significant differences between Scopus and WoS due to substantial differences in the number of funded articles between some single journals.

Conclusion: Due to significant differences in the number of funded articles indexed in WoS and Scopus, which might be attributed to the different protocols for handling funding data in WoS and Scopus, we would still advise using both databases to obtain and analyze funding information.

Background: Having diverse representation in clinical trial participation is important. Historically, rural residents have been underrepresented in clinical trial research. Public librarians have an opportunity to promote clinical trial participation among rural residents by offering consumer health information services that help patrons to understand what clinical trials are and how they can find relevant clinical trials.

Case presentation: A consumer health library and a clinical trial center located at a large academic medical center collaborated to provide clinical trial information programming to rural public libraries. The group was awarded a Network of the National Library of Medicine (NNLM) Community Outreach Grant and was able to plan, develop, promote, and implement programs including training workshops, a speaker event, and a book discussion to rural public librarians.

Discussion: Marketing the programs to rural public libraries was difficult and many barriers were encountered. Though registration and subsequent participation were low, participants expressed interest and gratitude for the programs. For any future programs targeting this population, further strategies will need to be implemented to ensure increased registrations and attendees.

Background: The Weill Cornell Medicine, Samuel J. Wood Library's Systematic Review (SR) service began in 2011, with 2021 marking a decade of service. This paper will describe how the service policies have grown and will break down our service quantitatively over the past 11 years to examine SR timelines and trends.

Case presentation: We evaluated 11 years (2011-2021) of SR request data from our in-house documentation. In the years assessed, there have been 319 SR requests from 20 clinical departments, leading to 101 publications with at least one librarian collaborator listed as co-author. The average review took 642 days to publication, with the longest at 1408 days, and the shortest at 94 days. On average, librarians spent 14.7 hours in total on each review. SR projects were most likely to be abandoned at the title/abstract screening phase. Several policies have been put into place over the years in order to accommodate workflows and demand for our service.

Discussion: The SR service has seen several changes since its inception in 2011. Based on the findings and emerging trends discussed here, our service will inevitably evolve further to adapt to these changes, such as machine learning-assisted technology.

For over a millennium, libraries and library workers have advanced the knowledge of human science by building, preserving, and sharing collections and research. Historically, libraries have also aligned their institutional responsibilities to adhere to and support the values and virtues of oppressive and colonial practices. Library history has shown the mistreatments and denials of information access of marginalized groups. The history of libraries in the health and medical sciences reveals how these institutions and their workers have preserved and circulated research studies perpetuating racial science. This commentary highlights how such institutions shape and contribute to racial science in the field of medicine. By exploring the history of medicine through this lens, we examine how such institutions have been complicit in upholding racial science. We explore historical documents and archival collections that have been collected and preserved, particularly records and data of vulnerable groups, to advance the knowledge and understanding of the human body through the ideology of racial science. We argue that health and medical sciences librarians need to critically interrogate the racism in medical libraries and its history and address how health misinformation is common even in scholarly publications.

Objective: This study aimed to measure the association between the efficacy/efficiency of digital information retrieval among community family physicians at the point of care and information and computer literacy.

Methods: This study is a part of a cross-sectional anonymous online survey-based study among community family physicians who reported no affiliation with an academic institution in eight Arab countries.

Results: A total of 72 physicians were included. The mean total score for the information literacy scale was 59.8 out of 91 (SD = 11.4). The mean score was 29.3 (SD = 5.6) out of 55 on the computer literacy scale. A one-way ANOVA revealed a statistically significant association between information literacy and information retrieval efficacy (F (2,69) = 4.466, p = 0.015) and efficiency of information retrieval (F (2.69) = 4.563, p = 0.014). Computer literacy was not associated with information retrieval efficacy or efficiency.

Conclusion: The information and computer literacy scores of community family physicians in eight Arab countries are average. Information literacy, rather than computer literacy, is positively associated with the efficacy and efficiency of information retrieval at the point of care. There is room for improvement in evidence-based medicine curricula and continuous professional development to improve information literacy for better information retrieval and patient care.

Objective: In 2002, the National Library of Medicine (NLM) introduced semi-automated indexing of Medline using the Medical Text Indexer (MTI). In 2021, NLM announced that it would fully automate its indexing in Medline with an improved MTI by mid-2022. This pilot study examines indexing using a sample of records in Medline from 2000, and how an early, public version of MTI's outputs compares to records created by human indexers.

Methods: This pilot study examines twenty Medline records from 2000, a year before the MTI was introduced as a MeSH term recommender. We identified twenty higher- and lower-impact biomedical journals based on Journal Impact Factor (JIF) and examined the indexing of papers by feeding their PubMed records into the Interactive MTI tool.

Results: In the sample, we found key differences between automated and human-indexed Medline records: MTI assigned more terms and used them more accurately for citations in the higher JIF group, and MTI tended to rank the Male check tag more highly than the Female check tag and to omit Aged check tags. Sometimes MTI chose more specific terms than human indexers but was inconsistent in applying specificity principles.

Conclusion: NLM's transition to fully automated indexing of the biomedical literature could introduce or perpetuate inconsistencies and biases in Medline. Librarians and searchers should assess changes to index terms, and their impact on PubMed's mapping features for a range of topics. Future research should evaluate automated indexing as it pertains to finding clinical information effectively, and in performing systematic searches.