Academic literature on the topic 'Wood's library of standard medical authors'

Purpose This paper aims to provide image repository to the medical professional in an open source platform, which will increase the visibility of Digital Imaging and Communication in Medicine (DICOM) image in a network mode; further, the proposed system will reduce the storage cost of the images to significant level. Design/methodology/approach The authors have developed a new institutional repository model for the medical professionals cum radiologists to preserve, store and retrieve medical images from one database with the help of open source software. The authors used JavaScript programming to integrate and develop the DICOM Standard with DSpace. Findings Major outcome of this work is that DICOM images can be accommodated in DSpace without modifying the image properties and keeping intact the various dimensions of image viewing options. Further, it was found that the images are retrieved without any ease because of the robust indexing system. Research limitations/implications Major limitation of this study was the size of the data (5000 DICOM image) with which the authors have tested the system. The scalability of the system has to be tested on various fronts, for which separate study has to be done. Practical implications Once this system is in place, DICOM user can store, retrieve and access the image from Web platform. This proposed repository will be the storehouse of various DICOM images with reasonable storage costs. Originality/value In addition to exploring the opportunities of open source software (OSS) implementation in Medical Fields, this study includes issues related to implementation of open source repository for storing and preserving medical image. This is the first time in Library Science field to create and develop Open Source DICOM Medical Image Library with the help of DSpace. The study will create value for library professionals as well as medical professionals and OSS vendors to understand the medical market in the context of OSS.

Purpose This study aims to highlight the role of librarians as an essential element in medical research. For this purpose, the primary research process was divided into three phases: before, during and after. Then, the roles of librarians associated with each phase were separated and the viewpoint of researchers and librarians on the importance of these roles were considered and compared. Design/methodology/approach This comparative, descriptive-causal research was conducted using the census method. Birjand University, a type-2 university in the field of Medical Sciences according to the rating of the Iranian Ministry of Health and Medical Education, was selected for the study. The participants were all faculty members and all librarians working in the university’s libraries. The data collection tool was a questionnaire made by authors. Its validity was confirmed by four professors of Library Science, and questionnaire design expert and its reliability was confirmed with a Cronbach's alpha of 0.89. Data were analyzed with the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, using descriptive statistics. Findings From the perspective of researchers, awareness-raising for open access resources, determination of standard subject keywords on the basis of Medical Subject Headings for articles and scientific texts and using scientific research findings as a basis for preventing duplicate studies in future research are the most important roles for librarians in the three stages of medical research. From the perspective of librarians, the use of knowledge management skills, searching scientific information as review of the literature and also selecting standard keywords to search the databases and providing health-care professionals with the findings of latest scientific research have the highest place in the different stages of the research lifecycle. Originality/value The difference between the viewpoints of librarians and researchers about the role of medical librarians at the various stages of the research lifecycle shows that there are significant gaps between the librarians’ services and users’ expectations. It is expected that through learning modern professional skills, medical librarians can assume new roles in medical research and make their capabilities known and available to researchers.

A Review of:
 Gehanno, J. F., Rollin, L., & Darmoni, S. (2013). Is the coverage of Google Scholar enough to be used alone for systematic reviews. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 13(1): 7. doi: 10.1186/1472-6947-13-7
 
 Abstract
 
 Objective – To determine if Google Scholar (GS) is sensitive enough to be used as the sole search tool for systematic reviews.
 
 Design – Citation analysis.
 
 Setting – Biomedical literature. 
 
 Subjects – Original studies included in 29 systematic reviews published in the Cochrane Library or JAMA.
 
 Methods – The authors searched MEDLINE for any systematic reviews published in the 2008 and 2009 issues of JAMA or in the July 8, 2009 issue of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. They chose 29 systematic reviews for the study and included these reviews in a gold standard database created specifically for this project. The authors searched GS for the title of each of the original references for the 29 reviews. They computed and noted the recall of GS for each reference.
 
 Main Results – The authors searched GS for 738 original studies with a 100% recall rate. They also made a side discovery of a number of major errors in the bibliographic references. 
 Conclusion – Researchers could use GS as a stand-alone database for systematic reviews or meta-analyses. With a couple improvements to the rate of positive predictive values and advanced search features, GS could become the leading medical bibliographic database.
 
 Conclusion – Researchers could use GS as a stand-alone database for systematic reviews or meta-analyses. With a couple improvements to the rate of positive predictive values and advanced search features, GS could become the leading medical bibliographic database.

A review of:
 
 Crumley, Ellen T., Wiebe, Natasha, Cramer, Kristie, Klassen, Terry P., Hartling, Lisa. “Which resources should be used to identify RCT/CCTs for systematic reviews: a systematic review.” BMC Medical Research Methodology 5:24 (2005) doi:10.1186/1471-2288-5-24 (available from: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2288/5/24. 
 
 Objective – To determine the value of searching different resources to identify relevant controlled clinical trial reports for systematic reviews.
 
 Design – Systematic review.
 
 Methods – Seven electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, ERIC, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Cochrane Library) were searched to April 2004;four journals (Health Information & Libraries Journal - formerly Health Libraries Review, Hypothesis, Journal of the Medical Library Association - formerly Bulletin of the Medical Library Association, Medical Reference Services Quarterly were handsearched from 1990 to 2004; all abstracts of the Cochrane Colloquia (1993-2003) were handsearched; key authors were contacted and relevant article references screened. Two reviewers independently screened results for studies that compared two or more resources to find RCTs or CCTs using defined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Two reviewers assessed studies for quality using four criteria: adequate descriptions of what the search was attempting to identify, the methods used to search, the reference standard; and, evidence that bias was avoided in selection of relevant studies. Screening and assessment differences between reviewers were resolved through discussion. Using a standard form, one investigator extracted data for each study, such as study design, results (e.g., recall, precision); a second investigator checked these data. Authors were contacted to provide missing data. Results were grouped by resources compared and these comparisons were summarized using medians and ranges. Search strategies were categorized as Complex (using a combination of types of search terms), Cochrane (the Cochrane Highly Sensitive Search Strategy or HSSS), Simple (using five or fewer search terms which may include a combination of MeSH, Publication Type, keywords), and Index (using one or two terms to check/verify if the study is in the database).1
 
 Main results – Sixty-four studies met criteria for inclusion in the analysis. Four major comparisons were: MEDLINE vs. handsearch (n=22), MEDLINE vs. MEDLINE + handsearch (n=12), MEDLINE vs. other reference standard (n=18), and EMBASE vs. reference standard (n=13). Thirteen other comparisons had only one or two studies each. The most common comparison was between MEDLINE vs. Handsearching. Data analyzed from 23 studies and 22 unique topic comparisons showed a 58% median for search recall (range=7-97%). Data for search precision based on 12 studies and 11 unique topic comparisons indicated a median of 31% (range=0.03-78%). Data based on more than four comparisons, shows no median recall more than 75% (range=18-90%) and no median precision more than 40% (range=13-83%). Recall was higher for Trial Registries vs. Reference Standard (89%, range=84-95%) but these numbers were based on two studies and four comparisons; one study with two comparisons measured precision (range=96-97%) for Trial Registries vs Reference Standard. Subgroup analyses indicate that Complex and Cochrane searches each achieve better recall and precision compared to Simple searches. Forty-two studies reported reasons why searches miss relevant studies. The reason cited most often for electronic databases was inadequate or inappropriate indexing. 
 
 Conclusion – The results of this systematic review indicate that no one resource results in particularly high recall or precision when searchers look for RCTs and CCTs.

Objective – To determine which search tool (Google, UpToDate, PubMed or Ovid-MEDLINE) produces more accurate answers for residents, medical students, and attending physicians searching on clinical questions in anesthesiology and critical care. Searcher confidence in the answers and speed with which answers were found were also examined.
 
 Design – Randomized study without a control group.
 
 Setting – Large university medical center.
 
 Subjects –Subjects included 15 fourth year medical students (third and fourth year), 35 residents, and 4 attending physicians volunteered and completed the study. One additional attending withdrew halfway through the study. The authors were unsuccessful in recruiting an equal number of subjects from each group.
 
 Methods – A set of eight anesthesia and critical care questions was developed, based on their commonality and importance in clinical practice and their answerability. Four search tools were employed: Google, UpToDate, PubMed, and Ovid MEDLINE. In part I, subjects were given a random set of four of the questions to answer with the search tool(s) of their choice, but could use only one search tool per question. In part II, several weeks later, the same subjects were randomly assigned a search tool with which to answer all 8 questions. The authors state that “for data analysis, PubMed was arbitrarily chosen to be the “reference standard.”” Statistical analysis was used to identify significant differences between PubMed and the other search tools.
 
 Main Results – Part I: Subjects choosing a search tool were more likely to find a correct answer with Google or UpToDate. There were no statistically significant differences in confidence with answers between any of the search tools and PubMed. 
 
 Part II: Though subjects were assigned a search tool, some questions were repeated from part I. For repeated questions, Ovid users (compared to PubMed users) were significantly less likely to find the correct answer for repeated questions. Otherwise, there was no statistically significant difference in questions answered correctly. Confidence did not differ. When asked to answer new questions, subjects using Google and UpToDate were significantly more likely to find a correct answer than PubMed users. UpToDate users were more confident. There was no statistical difference in primary outcome (correct answer with high confidence) between Google, Ovid, and PubMed. 
 
 Pooled data from parts I and II, removing repeated questions: Subjects using Google and UpToDate were more likely to find correct answers. Confidence was highest among UpToDate users. Average search time per question (limited to 5 minutes per question) in ascending order of time spent was: UpToDate, Google, PubMed, and Ovid. 
 
 Conclusion – While the number of participants is small, the results suggest that the popular search engine Google and the commercially produced secondary online source UpToDate are more useful and efficient for finding answers to questions arising in anesthesiology and critical care practice than tools focused exclusively on indexing the primary literature.

Scientists frequently communicate the results of their work in research reports. When writing scientific articles, authors must follow instructions and requirements of standard article format. A scientific paper should have in proper order, a Title, Abstract, Introduction, Material and Methods Results, Discussion, Conclusion and Literature. A title should be the fewest possible words that accurately describe the content of the paper. It should attract researchers' attention in order to be included in their investigation. An abstract is a short summary of the article. It concisely summarizes results and conclusion so that essential details of the paper can be understood in 100 - 250 words. The most commonly used are structured abstracts. Key words are provided below the abstract and describe the medical concepts characteristic for the whole article. Assign at least one and an average of 5 to 10 key words. Indexing in biomedicine means using the Thesaurus of the American National Library of Medicine: Medical Subject Headings. It provides easy and fast access to precise information using key words assigned to each document. Reference citation is obligatory and integral part of scientific articles. It provides communication among the authors and binds scientific papers as well as whole scientific knowledge in certain fields.

Objective – To investigate academic staff’s use and creation of social media for work-related purposes as well as analyze how this influences consumption of traditional scholarly resources. 
 
 Design – A 60 question survey instrument in questionnaire format (instrument appended to the article).
 
 Setting – Six universities in the United Kingdom.
 
 Subjects – Respondents include 2,117 academic staff or faculty.
 
 Methods – In 2011, the authors sent a 60 question survey to 6 universities in the United Kingdom. Library directors were asked to send out the survey to their university’s academic staff, and 12,600 invitations were sent out. An application to the Institutional Review Board was also implemented and approved as long as the respondents could exit the survey at any time. There were 2,117 respondents with a maximum of 1,078 respondents to the questions regarding social media. 
 
 Questions included in the survey asked the frequency of use of traditional scholarly resources with a focus on reading articles and books. Respondents were also asked to answer questions regarding how they accessed resources and how they used what they were reading. They were asked to provide information regarding accessing other publications such as conference proceedings, government documents, and magazines or trade journals. The authors also recorded demographic information such as respondent’s field of study, position within the university, age, and gender. Following questions regarding use of traditional resources and demographics, respondents were asked to answer questions regarding social media use and creation for work-related purposes. 
 
 Main Results – The authors asked respondents how much traditional scholarly reading they did in the last month. With regard to traditional scholarly reading activity, the authors found that academic staff in the United Kingdom read about 22 articles, with medical and health sciences field consuming the most articles and social scientists consuming the least. Book and book chapter reading is more prevalent in the humanities discipline as they, on average, read about 20 books or book chapters. The average across disciplines is seven books or book chapters, with the medical and health sciences academic staff reading the least. “Other publications” were also accounted for such as government documents, trade journals, and conference proceedings, and on average, academics read about 11 in the last month. After data was collected, authors excluded outliers over three standard deviations from the mean to assure a more representative average.
 
 Respondents were asked how often they use social media such as blogs, online videos, RSS feeds, Twitter, user comments in online articles, podcasts, and other. The authors found that academics in the United Kingdom use social media occasionally, but not on a regular basis. They also found that social media is less likely to be created than used. Occasional use is recorded by half of the respondents who use only two of the resources listed in the survey. Only 5% of the respondents said they use all of the social media tools listed. Over half of the respondents said they do not “create” social media tools for work. Participation and use of the tools is much more prevalent according to the results of this survey. 
 
 Regarding demographic responses recorded, those who are in the humanities and medical and health sciences use more blogs for their work, and those in the medical and health sciences also participate most in user comments in articles. Younger respondents (under 30-40 years of age) use more social media tools such as blogs, RSS feeds, and Twitter. Those who are actively teaching tend to use social media more frequently and while they do not create tools more frequently than others, they do create the most online videos out of any of the tools mentioned. There was no significant association between use of social media and the respondent’s position, gender, or the number of awards earned. Respondents who “tweet” or use Twitter consume the most amount of scholarly material. Overall, the authors found that those who participate in social media also consume a significant amount of traditional scholarly content. 
 
 Conclusion – The authors conclude that while most academics in the United Kingdom participate in use of social media for work-related purposes, the results show that usage is not as frequent as expected. Creation of these tools is even less frequent, although the survey did show that academics who consume traditional scholarly resources tend to also consume social media more frequently. The use of social media is also not replacing traditional scholarly resources, but instead they are used alongside as part of the vast amount of information sources available to scholars. Publishers and others who are tasked with creation of scholarly content should consider the addition of social media tools into products. The article also implies that when academics can easily access both traditional and social media tools and use them in conjunction, the use of social media tools in academia will grow.

To systematize the existing methods, techniques, and means of non-specific prevention transmission of the Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) in medical institutions, the authors perform a comprehensive analysis of data from domestic and foreign literature. Information was collected using Scopus, Web of Science, MedLine, the Cochrane Library, PubMed, RSCI, Cyberleninka. The analysis revealed data confirming the relevance of EBV infection for different areas of clinical medicine. Researchers do not classify EBV as a causative agent of diseases associated with medical care. Measures aimed at preventing transmission of EBV infection similar to those of other illnesses should consider the existing mechanisms of the transmission and the pathogen’s characteristics. The lifetime persistence of EBV in the human body, the presence of the pathogen in various organs and tissues during the active infection, the polymorphism of clinical manifestations of the disease, along with errors in compliance with disinfection and sterilization regimes, create a risk of cross-infection in medical institutions of various profiles. Intensive introduction into medical practice of modern including invasive methods of diagnosis and treatment assisted reproductive technologies; medical equipment contributes to the emergence of new factors of transmission of EBV infection and requires the development of standard protocols for their disinfection and sterilization. To improve medical staff’s competence it is necessary to introduce more widely training activities on preventive and anti-epidemic measures in the system of continuing medical education.

Abstract Current testing for the presence of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2 virus), which causes the novel coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) infection, is typically reliant upon collection of nasal swab samples from subjects. These tests (reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction [RT-PCR] and antigen) are intrusive, can take significant time to process, and can give deleterious false negative and false positive results. Alternative methods for COVID-19 testing and screening are being studied, including the use of trained scent detection dogs to detect volatile organic compounds (VOCs) associated with the COVID virus. In August 2020 and October 2020, the first author (T.D.) searched MEDLINE/PubMed, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, and additional news articles using keyword phrases including “COVID scent dogs,” “COVID sniffer dogs,” and “COVID detection dog,” returning a total of 13 articles, nine of which were duplicates. Four remaining peer-reviewed studies dedicated to determining the feasibility and efficacy of detecting and screening individuals who may be infected by the COVID-19 virus with scent detection dogs were then examined. In this narrative review, the authors describe the methodologies and results of the remaining four studies, which demonstrated that the sensitivity, specificity, and overall success rates reported by the summarized scent detection studies are comparable to or better than the standard RT-PCR and antigen testing procedures, meaning that scent detection dogs can likely be effectively employed to nonintrusively screen and identify individuals infected with the COVID-19 virus in hospitals, senior care facilities, schools, universities, airports, and even large public gatherings for sporting events and concerts.