Objective – This project sought to identify the five most used evidence based bedside information tools used in Canadian health libraries, to examine librarians’ attitudes towards these tools, and to test the comprehensiveness of the tools.
Methods – The author developed a definition of evidence based bedside information tools and a list of resources that fit this definition. Participants were respondents to a survey distributed via the CANMEDLIB electronic mail list. The survey sought to identify information from library staff regarding the most frequently used evidence based bedside information tools. Clinical questions were used to measure the comprehensiveness of each resource and the levels of evidence they provided to each question.
Results – Survey respondents reported that the five most used evidence based bedside information tools in their libraries were UpToDate, BMJ Clinical Evidence, First Consult, Bandolier and ACP Pier. Librarians were generally satisfied with the ease of use, efficiency and informative nature of these resources. The resource assessment determined that not all of these tools are comprehensive in terms of their ability to answer clinical questions or with regard to the inclusion of levels of evidence. UpToDate was able to provide information for the greatest number of clinical questions, but it provided a level of evidence only seven percent of the time. ACP Pier was able to provide information on only 50% of the clinical questions, but it provided levels of evidence for all of these.
Conclusion – UpToDate and BMJ Clinical Evidence were both rated as easy to use and informative. However, neither product generally includes levels of evidence, so it would be prudent for the practitioner to critically appraise information from these sources before using it in a patient care setting. ACP Pier eliminates the critical appraisal stage, thus reducing the time it takes to go from forming a clinical question to implementing the answer, but survey respondents did not rate it as high in terms of usability. There remains a need for user-friendly, comprehensive resources that provide evidence summaries relying on levels of evidence to support their conclusions.
I think nurses are missing something if they haven’t investigated blogs written by medical librarians. Experts in finding and assessing information, medical librarians are an resource underutilized by many nurses.
Visit a medical librarian’s blog, communicate electronically, or visit one in person. You’ll find colleagues who want to provide you with the right information at the right time to care for patients.
How much do medical libraryfolk love Bill Perry right now?
Reminder: Liz’s due date is July 10th. Please forgive my one-track mind.
Wanting to track labor (or false labor) contractions, I made an Excel spreadsheet. The first two columns record the time a contraction starts and the time it ends, the third and fourth columns (duration and frequency) calculate automatically.
All you have to do is hit the spacebar when a contraction begins or ends and ContractionMaster will mark the times and calculate the contraction duration and frequency.
My only complaint is that it has no method of output. What if I wanted to take the history it records to the Certified Nurse Midwife? I can’t export the data it records to a file, I can’t copy-and-paste the history from the site to a text file or Excel, and I can’t print without taking a screen capture.
“e-LiSe (e-Literature Searcher) is an easy-to-use web-based application which finds biomedical information truly related to English words provided by the user. The program uses PubMed database of scientific abstracts as the source of data and a novel bio-linguistic statistical method (based on Z-score), to discover true correlations, even when they are low-frequency associations.
e-LiSe is also capable of finding names of researchers correlated to the information searched by the user. It can function as a name reference engine, answering questions like “who is working on specified subject?” or “what are the coworkers/collaborators of a certain person?”. For the latter the software uses the list of co-authors of each publication a researcher has written to display connections between scientists.”
about medical / health / health sciences / biomedical librarianship;
written by (a) medical librarian(s) or medical library paraprofessional(s);
maintained by a medical library; or
maintained by professional association of medical librarians and/or medical library paraprofessionals.
Hey! My blog has the MedLib Blog badge and you haven’t featured it here!
Sorry! I do try for omniscience, but frequently fall short of this goal. If I’ve missed the badge on your blog or if you’ve just added it, please let me know so I can link to it from here.
Why would I want to add the badge to my blog?
The badge links back to the masterlist of MedLib blogs to indicate the blog’s membership in the growing community (and sense of community) of MedLib blogs(/bloggers). (This should serve also as a reminder to add your blog to this masterlist, if appropriate.)
To add this badge to your own blog, just copy and paste this code:
“About 9 years ago I was totally burned out. Things were getting to me. When I went to the office all the crying and whining was driving me crazy. Then I realized that the crying and whining was coming from me. What saved me was the stories my partners and I shared with each other. It made me realize I wasn’t alone. Ripping on all the absurdities that go on in health care didn’t hurt either.”
What are your richest sources for subjects to satirize?
Medicine is so chock full of bullshit. The shenanigans of the Medical Axis of Evil (lawyers, insurance companies, big Pharma) makes life too easy for me.
Have any of your targets ever come after you for criticizing or satirizing them?
Google “Cigna” and “Farrago” togetherDavid did Google “Cigna” and “Farrago” together. Click here.. Let’s just say parody holds up pretty well as a defense mechanism.
To what do you attribute the growth of the Placebo Journal? What need does it fill?
Everyone loves medicine. There is a reason that ER, House and Grey’s Anatomy are so popular. We all have been patients at one time or another so everyone can relate. My audience initially was just doctors but it has spread like a virus. There is a vaccine for it, by the way, but it is only about 40% effective and may cause autism.
Placebo Journal fills the need of humor for many people – especially physicians, the majority of which are socially retarded.
Dr. Farrago is branching out into other media, including video. Embedded below is a recent episode of Placebo Television (distributed via YouTube).
(Those reading via RSS may need to visit the site to vbiew embedded video above)
To keep on top of new episodes, subscribe to this feed.
Good news for academic medical librarians:
Dr. Farrago is looking to improve his exposure to medical students. He tells me that he wants to give some free, one-year subscriptions to libraries that’ll put the Placebo Journal out where medical students can see them. If you’re interested, leave a comment below and I’ll pass your email address on to Dr. Farrago.
CoPub is a text mining tool that detects co-occuring biomedical concepts in abstracts from the Medline literature database. The biomedical concepts included in CoPub are all human, mouse and rat genes, furthermore biological processes, molecular functions and cellular components from Gene Ontology, and also liver pathologies, diseases, drugs and pathways. Altogether more than 250,000 search strings are linked with CoPub.
Special attention was given to genes and proteins. For all human, mouse and rat genes not only long forms of names were used, but also their symbols and aliases, which increases recall. Symbols not referring to genes or proteins are a well known problem, but sophisticated scripts detect these homonyms and neglect the abstracts in which they occur thereby increasing precision.
* Fast and easy access to relevant abstracts
* Single gene search in all categories
* Multiple gene search in all categories
* Single keyword search in gene category
* Categories of biomedical concepts: genes (human, mouse, rat), liver pathologies, biological processes, molecular functions, cellular components, diseases, drugs, pathways
* Use of long forms, symbols and aliases of genes
* Homonym detection
* Statistical filter to display only significant biomedical concepts
* Based on Medline abstracts till February 2008
“MiSearch works with NCBI Entrez and your history of browsing to build a profile of your areas of interest, and uses this information to rank citations likely to be of most most information to you at the top of the list.”
“MiSearch uses a classification algorithm based on MeSH term, substance names and author names associated with citations. Two sets are defined. One is the set of articles you have previously clicked on to view. The other is all of PubMed. For each citation in the retrieval set, the algorithm calculates the likelihood that the citation is a member of these two sets. Article having the highest likelihood of belonging to the set of articles you have viewed are ranked at the top of the list.
The “User” field is used as an identifier to track usage. If you do not provide a name, the IP address of your request will be used as a default. If you know you will be doing searches for different tasks with different subject areas, feel free to define a “User” for each task.”
At the AMA’s Medical Communications Conference, I insisted to a communications professional from a state professional association that professional associations needed to take advantage of social Web technologies and utilize them to the benefit of their members.
When pressed to explain WHY professional associations should do this, I said that those professional associations who don’t adopt these technologies will find that their members (and potential members) will use these technologies (without assistance from their professional associations) to organize without organizationsI haven’t read this book yet, but I love the title and urge you to please send me a copy.. Where will the professional associations be left when that happens?
With that in mind, here are some projects I’d love to see the MLA pursue.
1. Stop publishing books on dead trees
As I understand it, books published by the MLA are generally written by uncompensated MLA members, edited by uncompensated MLA members, and selected for publication by a committee of uncompensated MLA members. The selling of these books does not raise much (if any) money for the MLA.
Since this book publishing makes no money and the MLA members are okay with donating their time, why not post the book content online in the members-only section of MLAnet and make access to them a benefit of membership? The cost of providing this content would be reduced for the MLA and the content itself would become available to (and searchable by) all members of the MLA, regardless of their institutions’ book budgets. If any members just HAVE to have an MLA book on paper, MLA can make them available for order via Lulu, shifting the cost of print copies exclusively to the reader.
2. Make an “open source” resource to compete with Doody’s Core Titles
Alan Fricker was the first person who put this idea in my head.
Know who writes reviews for Doody’s without compensation? Largely MLA members.
Know who makes the decision to include access to DCT in their budgets? MLA members.
Why couldn’t the MLA offer a platform that accomplishes the same thing as DCT and invite all of the Doody reviewers to instead review for the MLA? The argument for both librarians and other clinical professionals would be that, if the resource is made available to all MLA members as a benefit of membership, everyone’s libraries can be better-informed and reallocate the money that used to be spent on DCT towards other needs.
Perhaps a (free) Pligg installation in the members-only section of MLAnet would do the trick?
3. Create a hedges and filters wiki
A handful of people I know have spent a good bit of time trying to convince me that librarians sometimes actually prefer to hoard their expertise and would be unwilling to share the hedges and filters they’ve spent time developing and perfecting. I prefer to hope that hoarding is on its way out and that the better model of unrestrained sharing will completely supplant it. With copy-and-paste ease, it’d be a pretty easy kind of wiki for librarians to contribute to- and the usefulness to working librarians (and to those who train new librarians) would be enormous.
These are just three ideas. Are they bad ideas? What else would be a good Web project for the MLA to take on? Let me know in the comments?