Linda Suk-Ling Murphy

Searching biomedical databases on complementary medicine: the use of controlled vocabulary among authors, indexers and investigators

BackgroundThe optimal retrieval of a literature search in biomedicine depends on the appropriate use of Medical Subject Headings (MeSH), descriptors and keywords among authors and indexers. We hypothesized that authors, investigators and indexers in four biomedical databases are not consistent in their use of terminology in Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM).MethodsBased on a research question addressing the validity of spinal palpation for the diagnosis of neuromuscular dysfunction, we developed four search concepts with their respective controlled vocabulary and key terms. We calculated the frequency of MeSH, descriptors, and keywords used by authors in titles and abstracts in comparison to standard practices in semantic and analytic indexing in MEDLINE, MANTIS, CINAHL, and Web of Science.ResultsMultiple searches resulted in the final selection of 38 relevant studies that were indexed at least in one of the four selected databases. Of the four search concepts, validity showed the greatest inconsistency in terminology among authors, indexers and investigators. The use of spinal terms showed the greatest consistency. Of the 22 neuromuscular dysfunction terms provided by the investigators, 11 were not contained in the controlled vocabulary and six were never used by authors or indexers. Most authors did not seem familiar with the controlled vocabulary for validity in the area of neuromuscular dysfunction. Recently, standard glossaries have been developed to assist in the research development of manual medicine.ConclusionsSearching biomedical databases for CAM is challenging due to inconsistent use of controlled vocabulary and indexing procedures in different databases. A standard terminology should be used by investigators in conducting their search strategies and authors when writing titles, abstracts and submitting keywords for publications.

Accuracy of continuous noninvasive hemoglobin monitoring: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND:Noninvasive hemoglobin (Hb) monitoring devices are available in the clinical setting, but their accuracy and precision against central laboratory Hb measurements have not been evaluated in a systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS:We conducted a comprehensive search of the literature (2005 to August 2013) with PubMed, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library, reviewed references of retrieved articles, and contacted manufactures to identify studies assessing the accuracy of noninvasive Hb monitoring against central laboratory Hb measurements. Two independent reviewers assessed the quality of studies using recommendations for reporting guidelines and quality criteria for method comparison studies. Pooled mean difference and standard deviation (SD) (95% limits of agreement) across studies were calculated using the random-effects model. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic. RESULTS:A total of 32 studies (4425 subjects, median sample size of 44, ranged from 10 to 569 patients per study) were included in this meta-analysis. The overall pooled random-effects mean difference (noninvasive—central laboratory) and SD were 0.10 ± 1.37 g/dL (−2.59 to 2.80 g/dL, I2 = 95.9% for mean difference and 95.0% for SD). In subgroup analysis, pooled mean difference and SD were 0.39 ± 1.32 g/dL (−2.21 to 2.98 g/dL, I2 = 93.0%, 71.4%) in 13 studies conducted in the perioperative setting and were −0.51 ± 1.59 g/dL (−3.63 to 2.62 g/dL, I2 = 83.7%, 96.4%) in 5 studies performed in the intensive care unit setting. CONCLUSIONS:Although the mean difference between noninvasive Hb and central laboratory measurements was small, the wide limits of agreement mean clinicians should be cautious when making clinical decisions based on these devices.

Accuracy and precision of non-invasive cardiac output monitoring devices in perioperative medicine: a systematic review and meta-analysis†

Cardiac output (CO) measurement is crucial for the guidance of therapeutic decisions in critically ill and high-risk surgical patients. Newly developed completely non-invasive CO technologies are commercially available; however, their accuracy and precision have not recently been evaluated in a meta-analysis. We conducted a systematic search using PubMed, Cochrane Library of Clinical Trials, Scopus, and Web of Science to review published data comparing CO measured by bolus thermodilution with commercially available non-invasive technologies including pulse wave transit time, non-invasive pulse contour analysis, thoracic electrical bioimpedance/bioreactance, and CO2 rebreathing. The non-invasive CO technology was considered acceptable if the pooled estimate of percentage error was <30%, as previously recommended. Using a random-effects model, sd, pooled mean bias, and mean percentage error were calculated. An I2 statistic was also used to evaluate the inter-study heterogeneity. A total of 37 studies (1543 patients) were included. Mean CO of both methods was 4.78 litres min−1. Bias was presented as the reference method minus the tested methods in 15 studies. Only six studies assessed the random error (repeatability) of the tested device. The overall random-effects pooled bias (limits of agreement) and the percentage error were −0,13 [−2.38 , 2.12] litres min−1 and 47%, respectively. Inter-study sensitivity heterogeneity was high (I2=83%, P<0.001). With a wide percentage error, completely non-invasive CO devices are not interchangeable with bolus thermodilution. Additional studies are warranted to demonstrate their role in improving the quality of care.

Use of Prothrombin Complex Concentrates and Fibrinogen Concentrates in the Perioperative Setting: A Systematic Review

The use of prothrombin complex concentrates (PCCs) and fibrinogen concentrates (FIBCs) to achieve hemostasis in the perioperative setting as alternatives to allogeneic blood products remains controversial. To examine the efficacy and safety of PCCs and FIBCs, we conducted a systematic review-in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis statement-to compare the use of these transfusion alternatives in bleeding surgical patients. We performed a literature search of English articles published between July 1997 and July 2012 in MEDLINE via PubMed, The Cochrane Library, and CINAHL. Five randomized trials and 15 nonrandomized studies with a comparator group were included in the final review. Studies were sorted into 1 of the following 3 clinical settings: cardiac surgery, non-cardiac surgery, and reversal of warfarin anticoagulation. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. With the exception of 2 randomized controlled trials, the existing body of literature on the use of PCCs and FIBCs in the perioperative setting was assessed to have a high degree of methodological bias. Overall, prospective studies in the cardiac surgery grouping suggested that patients receiving FIBC and/or PCCs required less allogeneic blood transfusion and had less chest tube drainage. In studies of warfarin reversal, PCCs more rapidly corrected the International Normalized Ratio compared to plasma; however, in the setting of intracranial hemorrhage, functional outcomes were poor regardless of the reversal strategy. With regards to safety outcomes, reporting was not uniform and raises concerns of underreporting. Adequately powered, methodologically sound trials would be required for more definitive conclusions to be drawn about the efficacy of PCCs and FIBC over conventional blood components for the treatment of perioperative coagulopathy in bleeding patients.

Discriminating Between Legitimate and Predatory Open Access Journals: Report from the International Federation for Emergency Medicine Research Committee

Introduction Open access (OA) medical publishing is growing rapidly. While subscription-based publishing does not charge the author, OA does. This opens the door for “predatory” publishers who take authors’ money but provide no substantial peer review or indexing to truly disseminate research findings. Discriminating between predatory and legitimate OA publishers is difficult. Methods We searched a number of library indexing databases that were available to us through the University of California, Irvine Libraries for journals in the field of emergency medicine (EM). Using criteria from Jeffrey Beall, University of Colorado librarian and an expert on predatory publishing, and the Research Committee of the International Federation for EM, we categorized EM journals as legitimate or likely predatory. Results We identified 150 journal titles related to EM from all sources, 55 of which met our criteria for OA (37%, the rest subscription based). Of these 55, 25 (45%) were likely to be predatory. We present lists of clearly legitimate OA journals, and, conversely, likely predatory ones. We present criteria a researcher can use to discriminate between the two. We present the indexing profiles of legitimate EM OA journals, to inform the researcher about degree of dissemination of research findings by journal. Conclusion OA journals are proliferating rapidly. About half in EM are legitimate. The rest take substantial money from unsuspecting, usually junior, researchers and provide no value for true dissemination of findings. Researchers should be educated and aware of scam journals.

Not All Young Journals Are Predatory - eScholarship

Section Editor: Mark I. Langdorf, MD, MHPE Submission history: Submitted October 11, 2016; Accepted October 19, 2016 Electronically published December 6, 2016 Full text available through open access at http://escholarship.org/uc/uciem_westjem DOI: 10.5811/westjem.2016.10.32826 [West J Emerg Med. 2017;18(2)318.] Stony Brook University, Department of Emergency Medicine and Editor, Clinical and Experimental Emergency Medicine, Stony Brook, New York

Scholarship in Emergency Medicine: A Primer for Junior Academics: Part II: Promoting Your Career and Achieving Your Goals

Scholarship is an important component of success for academic emergency physicians. Scholarship can take many forms, but all require careful planning. In this article, we provide expert consensus recommendations for improving junior faculty’s scholarship in emergency medicine (EM). Specific focus is given to promoting your research career, obtaining additional training opportunities, networking in EM, and other strategies for strategically directing a long-term career in academic medicine.

Screening emergency department patients for opioid drug use: A qualitative systematic review

INTRODUCTION The opioid drug epidemic is a major public health concern and an economic burden in the United States. The purpose of this systematic review is to assess the reliability and validity of screening instruments used in emergency medicine settings to detect opioid use in patients and to assess psychometric data for each screening instrument. METHODS PubMed/MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for articles published up to May 2018. The extracted articles were independently screened for eligibility by two reviewers. We extracted 1555 articles for initial screening and 95 articles were assessed for full-text eligibility. Six articles were extracted from the full-text assessment. RESULTS Six instruments were identified from the final article list: Screener and Opioid Assessment for Patients with Pain - Revised; Drug Abuse Screening Test; Opioid Risk Tool; Current Opioid Misuse Measure; an Emergency Medicine Providers Clinician Assessment Questionnaire; and an Emergency Provider Impression Data Collection Form. Screening instrument characteristics, and reliability and validity data were extracted from the six studies. A meta-analysis was not conducted due to heterogeneity between the studies. CONCLUSIONS There is a lack of validity and reliability evidence in all six articles; and sensitivity, specificity and predictive values varied between the different instruments. These instruments cannot be validated for use in emergency medicine settings. There is no clear evidence to state which screening instruments are appropriate for use in detecting opioid use disorders in emergency medicine patients. There is a need for brief, reliable, valid and feasible opioid use screening instruments in the emergency medicine setting.

Getting found: Indexing and the Independent Open Access Journal

Running an independent journal takes much effort, even if only focusing on managing the process of moving articles through the process of submission, review, and publication. Yet publishing an article is not the only goal. Even a great article has little impact unless it can easily be discovered for people to read and cite. Without visibility, even a journal with a terrific editorial board will not get the high quality submissions its editors seek.