Catálogo de publicaciones - revistas

<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:sec><jats:title>Background</jats:title><jats:p>The COVID‐19 pandemic has triggered a significant increase in academic research in the realm of social sciences. As such, there is an increasing need for the scientific community to adopt effective and efficient methods to examine the potential role and contribution of social sciences in the fight against COVID‐19.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Objectives</jats:title><jats:p>This study aims to identify the key topics and explore publishing trends in social science research pertaining to COVID‐19 via automated literature analysis.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Methods</jats:title><jats:p>The automated literature analysis employed utilizes keyword analysis and topic modelling technique, specifically Latent Dirichlet Allocation, to highlight the most relevant research terms, overarching research themes and research trends within the realm of social science research on COVID‐19.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Results</jats:title><jats:p>The focus of research and topics were derived from 9733 full‐text academic papers. The bulk of social science research on COVID‐19 centres on the following themes: ‘Clinical Treatment’, ‘Epidemic Crisis’, ‘Mental Influence’, ‘Impact on Students’, ‘Lockdown Influence’ and ‘Impact on Children’.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Conclusion</jats:title><jats:p>This study adds to our understanding of key topics in social science research on COVID‐19. The automated literature analysis presented is particularly useful for librarians and information specialists keen to explore the role and contributions of social science topics in the context of pandemics.</jats:p></jats:sec>

<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:sec><jats:title>Background</jats:title><jats:p>Continual evidence surveillance is an integral feature of living guidelines. The Australian Stroke Guidelines include recommendations on 100 clinical topics and have been ‘living’ since 2018.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Objectives</jats:title><jats:p>To describe the approach for establishing and evaluating an evidence surveillance system for the living Australian Stroke Guidelines.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Methods</jats:title><jats:p>We developed a pragmatic surveillance system based on an analysis of the searches for the 2017 Stroke Guidelines and evaluated its reliability by assessing the potential impact on guideline recommendations. Search retrieval and screening workload are monitored monthly, together with the frequency of changes to the guideline recommendations.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Results</jats:title><jats:p>Evidence surveillance was guided by practical considerations of efficiency and sustainability. A single PubMed search covering all guideline topics, limited to systematic reviews and randomised trials, is run monthly. The search retrieves about 400 records a month of which a sixth are triaged to the guideline panels for further consideration. Evaluations with Epistemonikos and the Cochrane Stroke Trials Register demonstrated the robustness of adopting this more restrictive approach. Collaborating with the guideline team in designing, implementing and evaluating the surveillance is essential for optimising the approach.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Conclusion</jats:title><jats:p>Monthly evidence surveillance for a large living guideline is feasible and sustainable when applying a pragmatic approach.</jats:p></jats:sec>

<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:sec><jats:title>Background</jats:title><jats:p>Medication discontinuation studies explore the outcomes of stopping a medication compared to continuing it. Comprehensively identifying medication discontinuation articles in bibliographic databases remains challenging due to variability in terminology.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Objectives</jats:title><jats:p>To develop and validate search filters to retrieve medication discontinuation articles in Medline and Embase.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Methods</jats:title><jats:p>We identified medication discontinuation articles in a convenience sample of systematic reviews. We used primary articles to create two reference sets for Medline and Embase, respectively. The reference sets were equally divided by randomization in development sets and validation sets. Terms relevant for discontinuation were identified by term frequency analysis in development sets and combined to develop two search filters that maximized relative recalls. The filters were validated against validation sets. Relative recalls were calculated with their 95% confidences intervals (95% CI).</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Results</jats:title><jats:p>We included 316 articles for Medline and 407 articles for Embase, from 15 systematic reviews. The Medline optimized search filter combined 7 terms. The Embase optimized search filter combined 8 terms. The relative recalls were respectively 92% (95% CI: 87–96) and 91% (95% CI: 86–94).</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Conclusions</jats:title><jats:p>We developed two search filters for retrieving medication discontinuation articles in Medline and Embase. Further research is needed to estimate precision and specificity of the filters.</jats:p></jats:sec>

<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:p>In this second special collection of COVID‐19‐related manuscripts, our focus moves from health information within academia to health librarianship in the wider context. Although COVID‐19 manuscripts may still occasionally appear in the <jats:italic>Health Information and Libraries Journal</jats:italic>, the World Health Organisation's declaration earlier this year of an end to the global health emergency marks an intentional editorial shift to adopting a broader perspective in publishing this type of work, a focus on public health information challenges and emergency preparedness, and a return to publishing a more familiar range of health library and information contexts and practice.</jats:p>

<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:sec><jats:title>Background</jats:title><jats:p>Stakeholders working on the COVID‐19 pandemic response needed access to evidence, requiring a systematic approach to identify and disseminate relevant research.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Objectives</jats:title><jats:p>Outline the stages of development of a COVID‐19 Literature Digest; demonstrate the impact the Digest had on decision‐making and knowledge gain; identify the lessons learned.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Methods</jats:title><jats:p>A standardised process was developed to identify and select papers. The main sources for content were PubMed, bioRxiv and medRxiv. A shared EndNote library was used to deduplicate and organise papers. Three user surveys obtained feedback from subscribers to determine if the Digest remained valuable, and explore the benefits to individuals.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Results</jats:title><jats:p>40–60 papers were summarised each week. 211 Digests were produced from March 2020 to March 2022, with around 10,000 papers included altogether. Survey results suggest benefits of the Digest were gaining new knowledge, saving time and contributing to evidence‐based decision making.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Discussion</jats:title><jats:p>Digest procedures constantly evolved and were adapted in response to survey feedback. Lessons identified: learn from failure, communication is key, measure your impact, work collaboratively, reflect and be flexible.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Conclusion</jats:title><jats:p>The Digest was successfully produced within the limits of available resource. The learning from this Digest will inform evidence monitoring, selection and dissemination for future health crises.</jats:p></jats:sec>

<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:sec><jats:title>Background</jats:title><jats:p>The Library and Knowledge Services at the Royal Berkshire NHS Foundation Trust has been at its current location since 1975 and, in September 2020, it was deemed necessary to examine the library environment and assess the signage.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Objectives</jats:title><jats:p>The main objective was to conduct a methodical assessment of all the current library signage in order to improve the library environment, wayfinding, and clarity.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Methods</jats:title><jats:p>A methodical signage audit was conducted by library staff, photographing signs, assigning them to categories, and creating a signage map.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Results</jats:title><jats:p>In total, 58 different signs were counted in the library. Of these, 22 signs were deemed satisfactory, 4 should be moved to a more appropriate location, 15 should be updated with a branded design and better messaging, and 17 were recommended for removal.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Discussion</jats:title><jats:p>The results demonstrated that there were three main areas where signage could be improved: reducing the quantity of signs, updating the language and design, and the use of ad hoc signage.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Conclusion</jats:title><jats:p>By assessing the signs and assigning categories and types, areas were identified as problem points that were impacting the library user's experience and small changes were implemented to improve the library environment.</jats:p></jats:sec>

<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:p>Medical and health sciences librarians who are involved in evidence synthesis projects will know that systematic reviews are intensely rigorous, requiring research teams to devote significant resources to the methodological process. As expert searchers, librarians are often identified as personnel to conduct the database searching portion and/or are approached as experts in the methodology to guide research teams through the lifecycle of the project. This research method has surged in popularity at our campus and demand for librarian participation is unsustainable. As a response to this, the library created self‐directed learning objects in the form of roadmap to assist researchers in learning about the knowledge synthesis methodology in an expedient, self‐directed manner. This paper will discuss the creation, implementation and feedback around our educational offering: <jats:italic>Systematic &amp; Scoping Reviews: Your Roadmap to Conducting an Evidence Synthesis</jats:italic>.</jats:p>