Lisa Kruesi

Is Wikipedia unsuitable as a clinical information resource for medical students

Teaching sessions for junior doctors are commonly evaluated using a paper questionnaire handed to participants at the end of the session. More recently evaluation has been undertaken on-line, often several days later. It is not known if the delay and changed modality affects the content of the evaluation. We have compared the results of evaluations using both methods for the same teaching. Sixty-eight F2 trainees attended a seminar entitled ‘Clinical Governance and Patient Safety’ (delivered by RP). Trainees were expected to complete an on-line evaluation within 2 weeks of the seminar date. However, they were also asked to complete an identical paper-based questionnaire at the end of the session. They were asked to mark both the content and delivery as ‘poor’, ‘average’ or ‘good’. There was space for comments. It was possible to calculate a percentage score by allocating a mark of 1 for ‘poor’, 2 for ‘average’ and 3 for ‘good’; the sum of these scores was divided by the maximum score available (3 the number of returns) 100. There were 55 paper and 68 on-line responses. The paper scores were 95% for content and 96% for delivery; the on-line scores were lower at 85% for content and 87% for delivery. The number of comments made per person was higher for the paper evaluation (1.7) than the on-line (1.0). The percentages of positive, neutral and negative comments (most were positive) were similar for the two methods. This study has shown that a presenter receives more favourable and extensive feed-back if the evaluation is requested shortly after an educational session, compared with an evaluation several days later on-line. Immediate responses may reveal feelings of well-being and the degree of rapport with the teacher rather than educational value of the teaching itself. However, the differences could also reflect the physical nature of paper and on-line methods; the effort required to log on to the internet, use passwords and type responses may have a negative impact. This takes longer than the completion of a paper questionnaire and may explain the reduced number of comments. There were more on-line than paper returns because the former was obligatory and the latter voluntary. Multiple factors should be taken into account when interpreting the results of evaluations.

Does Bradford's Law of Scattering predict the size of the literature in Cochrane Reviews?

Bradfords Law of Scattering is a law of diminishing returns and scattering. Bradford formulated the law in 1948 and claimed that for a given subject area “there are a few very productive periodicals, a larger number of more moderate producers, and a still larger number of constantly diminishing productivity” [1]. For any single issue, or subject area, the top third (Zone 1 or core) represents the journals that are the most frequently cited in the literature of that subject and that are, therefore, likely to be of highest interest to researchers in the discipline. The middle third (Zone 2) includes the journals that have had an average amount of citations, and the bottom third (Zone 3 or tail) comprises the long tail of journals that are seldom cited and regarded as of marginal importance to the subject [2]. Researchers have defined a subject area in lexical, semantic, and subject scattering terms [3], and some argue that problems in defining “subject” may not matter, provided it is applied consistently [4]. Bradfords law predicts that the number of journals in the second and third zones will be n and n2 times larger than the first zone respectively [5, 6], and therefore, it should be possible to predict the total number of journals containing papers on a subject once the number in the core and middle zone of journals is known. Once the total number of journals is known, it should be possible to predict how much relevant information is missing from an incomplete search. Given the time-consuming and extensive effort required to identify sources on a subject for a systematic review, accurately predicting the size (and quality, if possible) of the literature from Bradfords law would be useful for such studies. Empirical testing of Bradfords law requires a complete and large bibliography, a well-defined subject, and a limited time frame [5, 7]. Bradfords law has been applied successfully to measure the literature of many subjects, such as nursing [1], science [8], crystallography [9], and occupational therapy [2]. In addition, many librarians will be familiar with Eugene Garfields Science Citation Index, which is based on Bradfords law [10]. One analysis of all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the MEDLINE database found that the journal distribution varied from the standard Bradfords law [11]. However, there have not been any studies on the usefulness of Bradfords law to predict the size of literature in systematic reviews. Other methods to estimate the total number of articles when searching for systematic reviews, such as the Horizon Estimate, have been applied with varying success [12]. This study arose from work with the Acute Respiratory Infections Group, one of the fifty-two entities making up the Cochrane Collaboration. Cochrane Reviews are systematic literature reviews aiming at high quality and, therefore, explicitly striving for completeness. The validity of Bradfords law for systematic reviews has not been addressed in the literature. Accordingly, this study examined whether Bradfords law was valid for the Cochrane Review–identified literature on acute otitis media and pneumonia, conditions that are reported in a wide variety of clinical and health journals [13].

Evidence-based practice in action: how can your medical librarian help?

‘Putting Evidence-Based Practice into Action: EBP Journal Clubs’ was the theme of one of the workshops at the recent 10th International Congress on Medical Librarianship held in Brisbane, Australia. The workshops focus was the role of librarians in providing a non-threatening environment that would encourage clinicians to make evidence-based practice (EBP) a core part …

Health Sciences Librarians' Research on Medical Students' Use of Information for Their Studies at The Medical School, University of Queensland, Australia

This study reports the findings of research undertaken by health sciences librarians at the University of Queensland Library into how medical students use information for their studies, particularly resources and services provided by the Library. The methods utilized were an online survey and focus groups. Results indicated that students favor print resources over electronic, value accessing resources on a one-stop basis, and prefer training to be delivered flexibly. The implication of these results for future resource selection, service provision, and instructional design and delivery is discussed.