Samuel J. Wood Medical Library: Faculty Publications
Permanent URI for this collection
Browse
Recent Submissions
Item Rapid Response of Medical Education to COVID-19: A Historical PerspectiveMilano, Nicole J.; Cole, Curtis L.; Kang, Yoon (2020-06)“Rapid Response to Medical Education to COVID-19: A Historical Perspective” contextualizes the novel coronavirus pandemic and its impact on medical education at Weill Cornell Medicine into a broader historical context and demonstrates the utility of archival sources in better understanding the present.Item Learning to Thrive - Not Just Survive - as a Librarian with Mental IllnessHickner, Andy (ACRL, 2023)Contributed chapter to the book Thriving as a Mid-Career Librarian: Identity, Advocacy, and Pathways (https://www.alastore.ala.org/content/thriving-mid-career-librarian-identity-advocacy-and-pathways). This chapter discusses my experiences with mental illness and its interplay with my career as an information professional, incorporating a review of literature about mental health and the workplace.Item Medical Sciences Library Services Supported by a Research Information Management System (RIM)Fulton, Stephanie; Herbert, Bruce E (2020-12-14)Presented at the December 14, 2020 webinar Research Networking Tools: Case Studies for Libraries.Item VIVO Profiles: a critical component of our ecosystem of applicationsWheeler, Terrie (2020-12-14)Presented at the December 14, 2020 webinar Research Networking Tools: Case Studies for Libraries.Item Research Networking Tools: Case Studies for LibrariesCohn, Judy (2020-12-14)Presented at the December 12, 2020 webinar Research Networking Tools: Case Studies for LibrariesItem Elements and Sources of TruthRagon, Bart (2020-12-14)Presented at the December 12, 2020 webinar Research Networking Tools: Case Studies for Libraries.Item Dataset: Library Assessment Survey 2019-2020Wright, Drew (2020-11-24)Item Vaccination Hesitation: A virtual discovery and library orientationHickner, Andy (2020-11-24)This deposit contains all materials necessary to complete the Samuel J. Wood Library's virtual orientation activity for first-year medical students at Weill Cornell Medical College, first conducted in August 2020. Other academic libraries are welcome to reuse and adapt these materials for their own use as long as they provide the required attribution.Item Are Commonly Searched Databases Optimized for Systematic Review Exporting Needs? An MLA UX Caucus projectHickner, Andy; Saylor, Kate; Verma, Louisa (2020-08)Item How Long Should We Keep Data? An Evidence-Based Recommendation for Data Retention Using Institutional Meta-AnalysesWright, Drew N; Demetres, Michelle R; Mages, Keith C; DeRosa, Antonio P; Jedlicka, Caroline; Stribling, Judy C; Baltich Nelson, Becky; Delgado, Diana (2020-08)Objectives: The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is committed to ensuring results and data are made available to the public for research they fund, in whole or in part. Therefore, institutions and researchers must maintain accessible, sharable data for published studies. Using published meta-analyses (MAs) we sought to establish an evidence-based recommendation on how long data should be kept and shared. Methods: Using Web of Science (Core Collection – Clarivate Analytics) we identified all MAs with an affiliation of Weill Cornell Medicine (WCM) published through November 2019. The following search was used and identified 211 WCM affiliated meta-analyses: OO=(weill) AND TI=("meta-analysis") AND DT=(Article OR Review). The full text of each MA was reviewed. We then looked at all studies that met inclusion criteria for each MA and documented the publication date of the oldest included paper. For all 211 included MAs in this study, journal category (disciple) and impact factor was identified per Thomson Reuter's Journal Citation reports via Web of Science. All data and trends were analyzed using Power BI (Microsoft). Results: The average age of included studies is 17 years. The oldest data set utilized in a MA was 51 years old at the time of publishing, and the youngest was 2. WCM meta-analyses ranged in discipline, covering 37 out of 76 Web of Science medical-related journal categories. There appeared to be no strong association between data age and impact factor, but there is a possible correlation with data age and year of MA publication suggesting that newer publications include older studies relative to themselves. Conclusions: Based on our findings we recommend data be stored for sharing for a minimum of 17 years. This study lays groundwork for larger future studies.Item PROSPERO Protocols: Wait Time from Submission to Completed RegistrationDemetres, Michelle R; DeRosa, Antonio P; Mages, Keith C; Wright, Drew N; Delgado, Diana (2020-08)Objectives: The U.K.’s PROSPERO is the main international registry of systematic review (SR) protocols. Due to increased submissions, protocols from the U.K. are prioritized, as PROSPERO is funded by the National Institute for Health Research, resulting in international submissions experiencing processing delays. This study aims to determine the wait-time SR teams outside the U.K. have experienced when submitting protocols to PROSPERO. Methods: A 7-question survey was sent to information professionals via the following group listervs: AAHSL; ACRL Systematic Reviews & Related Methods Interest Group; MEDLIB-L; MLA NY/NJ Chapter; MLA Systematic Review Caucus. Survey responses were captured electronically using Qualtrics. Participants were asked: if they were located outside the U.K.; if they have registered a protocol to PROSPERO in the last 2 years; and how much time this took, including any resubmissions. Participants were then asked if this wait time was a deterrent from registering again, and if they would submit a protocol to a repository other than PROSPERO. Results: 54 responses were received, of which 34 were outside the U.K. and had submitted a protocol to PROSPERO in the past 2 years. Wait times were varied, with 33.3% still under review. Of those that completed registration “over 6 months” wait time was the most common response (23.3%), followed by “3-4 months” (20%). Resubmissions accounted for 9 votes – 6 resubmitting once, 3 more than once. Those resubmissions took an average 1-4 months additional time to registration. 33.3% of respondents said that the wait time they experienced would be a deterrent from submitting to PROSPERO again; 66.7% said it would not. However, 70% of respondents said they would submit a protocol to a repository other than PRSOPERO. For the free text answer of alternative repositories to submit, Open Science Framework was the most common reply. Conclusions: Our results are limited by the small number of valid responses to the survey. However, with the majority of respondents experiencing a wait time of 3 to over 6 months to complete registration, it may be useful to consider alternate options for protocol registration, such as Open Science Framework.Item An assessment of the quality of current clinical meta-analysesHameed, I; Demetres, M; Tam, DY; Rahouma, M; Khan, FM; Wright, DN; Mages, K; DeRosa, AP; Baltich Nelson, B; Pain, K; Delgado, D; Girardi, LN; Fremes, SE; Gaudino, M (BMC (part of Springer Nature), 2020-05-07)Background: The objective of this study was to assess the overall quality of study-level meta-analyses in high-ranking journals using commonly employed guidelines and standards for systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Methods: 100 randomly selected study-level meta-analyses published in ten highest-ranking clinical journals in 2016–2017 were evaluated by medical librarians against 4 assessments using a scale of 0–100: the Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies (PRESS), Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), Institute of Medicine’s (IOM) Standards for Systematic Reviews, and quality items from the Cochrane Handbook. Multiple regression was performed to assess meta-analyses characteristics’ associated with quality scores. Results: The overall median (interquartile range) scores were: PRESS 62.5(45.8–75.0), PRISMA 92.6(88.9–96.3), IOM 81.3(76.6–85.9), and Cochrane 66.7(50.0–83.3). Involvement of librarians was associated with higher PRESS and IOM scores on multiple regression. Compliance with journal guidelines was associated with higher PRISMA and IOM scores. Conclusion: This study raises concerns regarding the reporting and methodological quality of published MAs in high impact journals Early involvement of information specialists, stipulation of detailed author guidelines, and strict adherence to them may improve quality of published meta-analyses.Item The impact of institutional repositories: a systematic reviewDemetres, Michelle R; Delgado, Diana; Wright, Drew N (Journal of the Medical Library Association: JMLA, 2020-04-01)Objective: Institutional repositories are platforms for presenting and publicizing scholarly output that might not be suitable to publish in a peer-reviewed journal or that must meet open access requirements. However, there are many challenges associated with their launch and up-keep. The objective of this systematic review was to define the impacts of institutional repositories (IRs) on an academic institution, thus justifying their implementation and/or maintenance. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was performed in the following databases: Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, the Cochrane Library (Wiley), ERIC (ProQuest), Web of Science (Core Collection), Scopus (Elsevier), and Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts (EBSCO). A total of 6,593 citations were screened against predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Results: Thirteen included studies were divided into 3 areas of impact: citation count, exposure or presence, and administrative impact. Those focusing on citation count (n=5) and exposure or presence (n=7) demonstrated positive impacts of IRs on institutions and researchers. One study focusing on administrative benefit demonstrated the utility of IRs in automated population of ORCID profiles. Conclusion: Based on the available literature, IRs appear to have a positive impact on citation count, exposure or presence, and administrative burden. To draw stronger conclusions, more and higher-quality studies are needed.Item Bibliometric Visualization and Analysis Software: State of the Art, Workflows, and Best PracticesBales, Michael E.; Wright, Drew N.; Oxley, Peter R.; Wheeler, Terrie R. (2020-01)Despite the demonstrated value of visualization-based modalities for measuring and mapping science, it remains common practice to search and explore the literature via databases that present lists of articles with little, if any, supplementary visual information. Identifying the desired item in a list is a familiar information retrieval paradigm with a low cognitive load. However, given the rapid emergence of the field of visual text analytics, it is time to challenge the notion that article lists should remain the dominant method to search and organize the scientific literature. One reason that visualization methods are applied relatively rarely in information retrieval may be that it is difficult to develop useful and user-friendly science mapping systems. This article summarizes key workflows for bibliometric mapping, a technique for visually representing information from scientific publications, including citation data, bibliographic metadata, and article content. It describes methods and challenges in extracting, processing, and normalizing data, reducing dimensionality, modeling topics, assigning labels, and visualizing data. It also describes software tools available to support bibliometric analysis and science mapping workflows, outlines methods from other domains that have not been widely applied in bibliometric mapping, and considers opportunities for next generation bibliometric analysis and mapping software systems.Item Identifying predatory journals: 10 red flagsDemetres, Michelle R (2018-10-24)Item Burnout among medical and health sciences information professionals who support systematic reviews: an exploratory studyDemetres, Michelle R; Wright, Drew N; DeRosa, Antonio P (Journal of the Medical Library Association, 2020-01)Objective: The aim of this exploratory study was to assess personal, work-related, and client-related burnout among information professionals who support systematic review (SR) work. Methods: The Copenhagen Burnout Inventory, a validated tool for assessing burnout, was administered to information professionals who support SR work. A broad range of health sciences or medical librarians and information professionals were targeted via professional email discussion lists and news outlets. Questionnaire responses were captured electronically using Qualtrics Survey Software and quantitatively analyzed. Results: Respondents experienced an average personal burnout score of 48.6, work-related score of 46.4, and client-related score of 32.5 out of 100. Respondents who reported spending >80% of their job duties on SR work had significantly lower personal burnout scores than those who reported spending <10% of their job duties on SR work (average, 31.5 versus 50.9, respectively). Also, respondents who reported using an SR support tool had significantly lower personal burnout scores than those who reported sometimes using a tool (average, 43.7 versus 54.7, respectively). Conclusion: The results suggest that information professionals who dedicate more time to SR work or who consistently use an SR support tool experience less burnout. This study provides groundwork for further investigation with the aim of developing approaches to prevent or combat SR-related burnout among information professionals.Item Small Service Model at Two Newer Medical LibrariesBulgarelli, Nancy; Rand, Debra (2019-10-29)Item Research Impact EvaluationAbdulla, Arian (2019-10-29)Item Results from the AAHSL Impact SurveyRagon, Bart (2019-10-29)
- «
- 1 (current)
- 2
- 3
- »