Melissa L. Rethlefsen

If you feed them, they will come: A prospective study of the effects of complimentary food on attendance and physician attitudes at medical grand rounds at an academic medical center

BackgroundEvidence suggests that attendance at medical grand rounds at academic medical centers is waning. The present study examined whether attendance at medical grand rounds increased after providing complimentary food to attendees and also assessed attendee attitudes about complimentary food.MethodsIn this prospective, before-and-after study, attendance at medical grand rounds was monitored from September 25, 2002, to June 2, 2004, using head counts. With unrestricted industry (eg, pharmaceutical) financial support, complimentary food was provided to medical grand rounds attendees beginning June 4, 2003. Attendance was compared during the pre-complimentary food and complimentary food periods. Attitudes about the complimentary food were assessed with use of a survey administered to attendees at the conclusion of the study period.ResultsThe mean (± SD) overall attendance by head counts increased 38.4% from 184.1 ± 90.4 during the pre-complimentary food period to 254.8 ± 60.5 during the complimentary food period (P < .001). At the end of the study period, 70.1% of the attendee survey respondents indicated that they were more likely to attend grand rounds because of complimentary food, 53.6% indicated that their attendance increased as a result of complimentary food, and 53.1% indicated that their attendance would decrease if complimentary food was no longer provided. Notably, 80.3% indicated that food was not a distraction, and 81.7% disagreed that industry representatives had influence over medical grand rounds because of their financial support for the food.ConclusionProviding free food may be an effective strategy for increasing attendance at medical grand rounds.

Effects of author contribution disclosures and numeric limitations on authorship trends

OBJECTIVE To determine whether editorial policies designed to eliminate gratuitous authorship (globally referred to as authorship limitation policies), including author contribution disclosures and/or numeric restrictions, have significantly affected authorship trends during a 20-year period. METHODS We used a custom PERL-based algorithm to extract data, including number of authors, publication date, and article subtype, from articles published from January 1, 1986, through December 31, 2006, in 16 medical journals (8 with explicit authorship guidelines restricting authorship and 8 without formal authorship policies), comprising 307,190 articles. Trends in the mean number of authors per article, sorted by journal type, article subtype, and presence of authorship limitations, were determined using Sens slope analysis and compared using analysis of variance and matched-pair analysis. Trend data were compared among the journals that had implemented 1 or both of these formal restrictive authorship policies and those that had not in order to determine their effect on authorship over time. RESULTS The number of authors per article has been increasing among all journals at a mean ± SD rate of 0.076±0.057 authors per article per year. No significant differences in authorship rate were observed between journals with and without authorship limits before enforcement (F=1.097; P=.30). After enforcement, no significant change in authorship rates was observed (matched pair: F=0.425; P=.79). CONCLUSION Implementation of authorship limitation policies does not slow the trend of increasing numbers of authors per article over time.

Engaging Medical Librarians to Improve the Quality of Review Articles

Review articles published in JAMA summarize various aspects of medical practice and are written by known authorities. An expert’s opinion about a topic has value, but often more can be learned by that expert’s assessment of all the pertinent literature. When reading individual research articles, readers could miss subtle features of the studies that are more apparent to an expert clinicianresearcher. Readers benefit from the expert’s explanation of the validity and applicability of individual studies. When authors summarize the literature, a natural tendency is to select articles supporting their views. To minimize this potential for bias, JAMA editors ask authors to systematically review the literature and comment on as much of it as is practical. Extensive literature searches can be difficult to perform, given the complexity of the search process and authors’ time constraints. It is also unlikely that a content expert will be familiar with the intricacies of more than one database. Empirical evidence provides a strong rationale for searching multiple databases. 1,2 For this reason, collaborating with medical librarians is recommended when writing review articles. A general approach for this collaboration is presented in the Box. Preliminary searches conducted by a librarian can help refine the question and determine its feasibility and scope. These initial screening searches can also inform the development of the review’s prospective inclusion and exclusion criteria. The choice of database depends on several factors. Most important is the content (topic)

Public health citation patterns: an analysis of the American Journal of Public Health, 2003-2005

OBJECTIVES The research sought to determine the publication types cited most often in public health as well as the most heavily cited journal titles. METHODS From a pool of 33,449 citations in 934 articles published in the 2003-2005 issues of American Journal of Public Health, 2 random samples were drawn: one (n = 1,034) from the total set of citations and one (n = 1,016) from the citations to journal articles. For each sampled citation, investigators noted publication type, publication date, uniform resource locator (URL) citation (yes/no), and, for the journal article sample, journal titles. The cited journal titles were analyzed using Bradford zones. RESULTS The majority of cited items from the overall sample of 1,034 items were journal articles (64.4%, n = 666), followed by government documents (n = 130), books (n = 122), and miscellaneous sources (n = 116). Publication date ranged from 1826-2005 (mean = 1995, mode = 2002). Most cited items were between 0 and 5 years old (50.3%, n = 512). In the sample of 1,016 journal article citations, a total of 387 journal titles were cited. DISCUSSION Analysis of cited material types revealed results similar to citation analyses in specific public health disciplines, including use of materials from a wide range of disciplines, reliance on miscellaneous and government documents, and need for older publications.

Citation analysis of Minnesota Department of Health official publications and journal articles: a needs assessment for the RN Barr Library.

OBJECTIVE The paper describes the information needs of a state public health agency, compares needs to its librarys collection, and evaluates collection development policy accordingly. METHODS A citation analysis of journal articles authored by Minnesota Department of Health staff as well as official publications from 2002 to 2004 was conducted. Fifty-six publications fitting the criteria for inclusion in the study were identified using PubMed and library records. Information on each cited reference was recorded, including reference type, relative age of citation, and journal name, if applicable. The librarys collection and collection development policies were analyzed in regard to the results. RESULTS As expected, journals were the most heavily cited format: 63% (n = 897) of all citations were to journal articles. Most cited materials were between 2 and 5 years old. The 897 journal citations represented 265 different journals. The top 10 cited journals (4% of all titles) accounted for 36% (n = 320) of all citations; 62% (n = 320) of journals were cited only once. Of the total journals cited, the library subscribed to 70% (n = 627). DISCUSSION Overall, no large gaps appeared in the RN Barr Librarys journal collection. The analysis confirms that the librarys collections budget for serials and books reflects the cited use of these materials.

Reproducibility of Search Strategies Is Poor in Systematic Reviews Published in High-Impact Pediatrics, Cardiology and Surgery Journals: A Cross-Sectional Study.

Background A high-quality search strategy is considered an essential component of systematic reviews but many do not contain reproducible search strategies. It is unclear if low reproducibility spans medical disciplines, is affected by librarian/search specialist involvement or has improved with increased awareness of reporting guidelines. Objectives To examine the reporting of search strategies in systematic reviews published in Pediatrics, Surgery or Cardiology journals in 2012 and determine rates and predictors of including a reproducible search strategy. Methods We identified all systematic reviews published in 2012 in the ten highest impact factor journals in Pediatrics, Surgery and Cardiology. Each search strategy was coded to indicate what elements were reported and whether the overall search was reproducible. Reporting and reproducibility rates were compared across disciplines and we measured the influence of librarian/search specialist involvement, discipline or endorsement of a reporting guideline on search reproducibility. Results 272 articles from 25 journals were included. Reporting of search elements ranged widely from 91% of articles naming search terms to 33% providing a full search strategy and 22% indicating the date the search was executed. Only 22% of articles provided at least one reproducible search strategy and 13% provided a reproducible strategy for all databases searched in the article. Librarians or search specialists were reported as involved in 17% of articles. There were strong disciplinary differences on the reporting of search elements. In the multivariable analysis, only discipline (Pediatrics) was a significant predictor of the inclusion of a reproducible search strategy. Conclusions Despite recommendations to report full, reproducible search strategies, many articles still do not. In addition, authors often report a single strategy as covering all databases searched, further decreasing reproducibility. Further research is needed to determine how disciplinary culture may encourage reproducibility and the role that journal editors and peer reviewers could play.

Teaching Web 2.0 Beyond the Library: Adventures in Social Media, the Class

Librarians at the Mayo Clinic developed customized Web 2.0 courses for library staff, health science faculty, and nurse educators. As demand for this type of training spread across the institution, a single, self-paced class was developed for all employees. The content covered the typical Web 2.0 and social media tools (e.g., blogs, really simple syndication [RSS], wikis, social networking tools) emphasizing the organizations social media guidelines. The team consulted with the public affairs department to develop the class and coordinate marketing and advertising. The eight-module, blog-based course was introduced to all employees in 2010. Employees completing each module and passing a brief assessment receive credit on their employee transcript. Libraries staff provided support to participants throughout the duration of the course through chat widgets, e-mail, and blog comments. The results show that even though a high number of learners accessed the course, the completion percentage was low since there was no requirement to complete the course. Deploying a single, self-paced course for a large institution is an enormous undertaking, requiring the support of high level administration, managers, and employees.

Library Learning Space—Empirical Research and Perspective

ABSTRACT Navigate the Net columns offer navigation to Web sites of value to medical librarians. For this issue, the authors recognize that librarians are frequently challenged to justify the need for the physical space occupied by a library in the context of the wide availability of electronic resources, ubiquitous student laptops, and competition for space needed by other institutional priorities. While this trend started years ago, it continues to raise a number of important practical and philosophical questions for libraries and the institutions they serve. What is the library for? What is library space best used for? How does the concept of “Library as Place” support informed decisions for librarians and space planners? In this issue, Web-based resources are surveyed that address these questions for libraries generally and health sciences libraries more specifically.

Scan and Deliver

Abstract Document delivery is challenging and complex, particularly in a high-volume library. This situation is further complicated by technology, with its inherent learning curve, need for technical support, and other limitations. This article focuses on the development and implementation of an in-house application, known as the Celsus Electronic Document Delivery System, in a large academic medical center library system, and offers advice for librarians interested in developing alternatives to commercial document delivery software such as Prospero, Ariel®, ILLiad, and Odyssey.

Optimal database combinations for literature searches in systematic reviews: A prospective exploratory study

BackgroundWithin systematic reviews, when searching for relevant references, it is advisable to use multiple databases. However, searching databases is laborious and time-consuming, as syntax of search strategies are database specific. We aimed to determine the optimal combination of databases needed to conduct efficient searches in systematic reviews and whether the current practice in published reviews is appropriate. While previous studies determined the coverage of databases, we analyzed the actual retrieval from the original searches for systematic reviews.MethodsSince May 2013, the first author prospectively recorded results from systematic review searches that he performed at his institution. PubMed was used to identify systematic reviews published using our search strategy results. For each published systematic review, we extracted the references of the included studies. Using the prospectively recorded results and the studies included in the publications, we calculated recall, precision, and number needed to read for single databases and databases in combination. We assessed the frequency at which databases and combinations would achieve varying levels of recall (i.e., 95%). For a sample of 200 recently published systematic reviews, we calculated how many had used enough databases to ensure 95% recall.ResultsA total of 58 published systematic reviews were included, totaling 1746 relevant references identified by our database searches, while 84 included references had been retrieved by other search methods. Sixteen percent of the included references (291 articles) were only found in a single database; Embase produced the most unique references (n = 132). The combination of Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science Core Collection, and Google Scholar performed best, achieving an overall recall of 98.3 and 100% recall in 72% of systematic reviews. We estimate that 60% of published systematic reviews do not retrieve 95% of all available relevant references as many fail to search important databases. Other specialized databases, such as CINAHL or PsycINFO, add unique references to some reviews where the topic of the review is related to the focus of the database.ConclusionsOptimal searches in systematic reviews should search at least Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Google Scholar as a minimum requirement to guarantee adequate and efficient coverage.