Robersonlink7481

Every step in the systematic review process has challenges, ranging from resistance by review teams to adherence to standard methodology to low-energy commitment to full participation. Vismodegib These challenges can derail the project and result in significant delays, duplication of work, and failure to complete the review. Communication during the systematic review process is key to ensuring it runs smoothly and is identified as a core competency for librarians involved in systematic reviews.

This case report presents effective communication approaches that our librarians employ to address challenges encountered while working with systematic review teams. The communication strategies we describe engage teams through information, questions, and action items and lead to productive collaborations with publishable systematic reviews.

Effective communication with review teams keeps systematic review projects moving forward. The techniques covered in this case study strive to minimize misunderstandings, educate collaborators, and, in our experience, have led to multiple successful collaborations and publications. Librarians working in the systematic review space will recognize these challenges and can adapt these techniques to their own environments.

Effective communication with review teams keeps systematic review projects moving forward. The techniques covered in this case study strive to minimize misunderstandings, educate collaborators, and, in our experience, have led to multiple successful collaborations and publications. Librarians working in the systematic review space will recognize these challenges and can adapt these techniques to their own environments.

The proliferation of systematic reviews has impacted library operations and activities as librarians support, collaborate, and perform more tasks in the systematic review process. This case report describes a toolkit that librarians with extensive experience in supporting multiple review teams use to manage time, resources, and expectations in the systematic review process.

The toolkit is a compilation of documents that we use to effectively communicate with and help review teams understand and navigate each stage of the systematic review process. Elements included in the toolkit and discussed in this case report are intake forms, communication templates and memoranda, a process flow diagram, library guides on tools for retrieval and data appraisal, and established standards for guidance during the write-up stage. We describe the use of the toolkit for both education and project management, with a focus on its use in helping manage team time, resources, and expectations.

The systematic review toolkit helps librarians connect systematic review steps and tasks to actionable items. The content facilitates and supports discussion and learning by both librarians and team members. This toolkit helps librarians share important information and resources for each stage of the process.

The systematic review toolkit helps librarians connect systematic review steps and tasks to actionable items. The content facilitates and supports discussion and learning by both librarians and team members. This toolkit helps librarians share important information and resources for each stage of the process.

Project ECHO (Extension for Community Healthcare Outcomes) is a telehealth initiative that aims to reduce disparities in delivery of health care by leveraging technology and local expertise to provide guidance on specialized subjects to health care providers across the world. In 2018, a new ECHO hub convened in Indianapolis with a focus on health care for individuals in the lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, and queer (LGBTQ+) populations. This ECHO iteration was one of the first of its kind and would soon be followed by a new human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) ECHO as well.

In a novel approach, information professionals participated in the early planning stages of the formation of these ECHO teams, which enabled the provision of real-time medical evidence and resources at the point-of-need once the teams were launched. This case study demonstrates proof of concept for including health sciences librarians and/or information professionals in the ECHO as hub team members. In this case study, the authors describb team members report high rates of satisfaction with the performance of embedded librarians and appreciate the provision of point-of-need evidence to ECHO participants.

The objective of this study was to investigate knowledge sharing practices among health sciences librarians in African countries.

A cross-sectional survey design was employed. The study population consisted of African health sciences librarians that attended the 16

Biennial Conference of the Association for Health Information and Libraries in Africa on October 14-18, 2019, at the University of Ibadan in Nigeria. Data were collected using a questionnaire and analyzed using descriptive statistics.

The types of knowledge most commonly shared by respondents were information on conferences, workshops, and seminars as well as information on new trends and technologies in librarianship. The main avenue of knowledge sharing was face-to-face interaction. Unwillingness to share knowledge and a lack of awareness about current trends and issues were the top identified challenges to knowledge sharing.

These survey results establish the existence of a low level of knowledge sharing among health science librarians in Africa and suggest that concerted efforts should be made to overcome barriers to knowledge sharing within and across African countries.

These survey results establish the existence of a low level of knowledge sharing among health science librarians in Africa and suggest that concerted efforts should be made to overcome barriers to knowledge sharing within and across African countries.

Within many institutions, there are debates over whether medical librarians should be classified as faculty or professional staff, a distinction that may have considerable effect on the perception of librarians within their local institutions. This study is a pilot exploration of how faculty status may affect the professional experiences of academic medical librarians within their local institutions.

Surveys were sent to 209 medical librarians listed as having some instructional function at Liaison Committee on Medical Education (LCME) accredited medical institutions in the United States. Survey responses were captured using Qualtrics survey tool and analyzed for frequencies and associations using SPSS version 27.

Sixty-four medical librarians at academic medical institutions completed the survey developed for this study. Of the respondents, 60.9% indicated that librarians at their institution have faculty status, while 71.9% believe that librarians at their institution should have faculty status. Ninety percent of librarians with faculty status reported that they are expected to generate scholarly materials, compared to 28% of those without faculty status.

Many medical libraries offer faculty status to librarians. While many medical librarians are active in instruction, research, and other activities normally associated with faculty status, it is not clear if faculty status impacts how librarians are perceived by other health care workers within their institutions.

Many medical libraries offer faculty status to librarians. While many medical librarians are active in instruction, research, and other activities normally associated with faculty status, it is not clear if faculty status impacts how librarians are perceived by other health care workers within their institutions.

Consumers commonly use the Internet for immediate drug information. In 2014, Google introduced the snippet block to programmatically search available websites to answer a question entered into the search engine without the need for the user to enter any websites. This study compared the accuracy and completeness of drug information found in Google snippet blocks to US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) medication guides.

Ten outpatient drugs were selected from the 2018 Clinical Drugstats Database Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. Six questions in the medication guide for each drug were entered into the Google search engine to find the snippet block. The accuracy and completeness of drug information in the Google snippet block were quantified by two different pharmacists using a scoring system of 1 (less than 25% accurate/complete information) to 5 (100% accurate/complete information). Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the scores.

For five out of the six questions, the information in the Googtients and consumers if written information may be needed.

We recently showed that genderize.io is not a sufficiently powerful gender detection tool due to a large number of nonclassifications. In the present study, we aimed to assess whether the accuracy of inference by genderize.io can be improved by manipulating the first names in the database.

We used a database containing the first names, surnames, and gender of 6,131 physicians practicing in a multicultural country (Switzerland). We uploaded the original CSV file (file #1), the file obtained after removing all diacritic marks, such as accents and cedilla (file #2), and the file obtained after removing all diacritic marks and retaining only the first term of the compound first names (file #3). For each file, we computed three performance metrics proportion of misclassifications (errorCodedWithoutNA), proportion of nonclassifications (naCoded), and proportion of misclassifications and nonclassifications (errorCoded).

naCoded, which was high for file #1 (16.4%), was reduced after data manipulation (file #2 11.7%, file #3 0.4%). As the increase in the number of misclassifications was small, the overall performance of genderize.io (i.e., errorCoded) improved, especially for file #3 (file #1 17.7%, file #2 13.0%, and file #3 2.3%).

A relatively simple manipulation of the data improved the accuracy of gender inference by genderize.io. We recommend using genderize.io only with files that were modified in this way.

A relatively simple manipulation of the data improved the accuracy of gender inference by genderize.io. We recommend using genderize.io only with files that were modified in this way.

The aim of this project was to validate search filters for systematic reviews, intervention studies, and observational studies translated from Ovid MEDLINE and Embase syntax and used for searches in PubMed and Embase.com during the development of evidence summaries supporting first aid guidelines. We aimed to achieve a balance among recall, specificity, precision, and number needed to read (NNR).

Reference gold standards were constructed per study type derived from existing evidence summaries. Search filter performance was assessed through retrospective searches and measurement of relative recall, specificity, precision, and NNR when using the translated search filters. Where necessary, search filters were optimized. Adapted filters were validated in separate validation gold standards.

Search filters for systematic reviews and observational studies reached recall of ≥85% in both PubMed and Embase. Corresponding specificities for systematic review filters were ≥96% in both databases, with a precision of 9.