Health sciences libraries’ subscriptions to journals: expectations of general practice departments and collection-based analysis

Barreau, David; Bouton, Céline; Renard, Vincent; Fournier, Jean‐Pascal

doi:10.5195/jmla.2018.282

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 10 publications

(13 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Electronic knowledge resources are commonly used in clinical practice and typically require significant resources, including the financial investment in procuring access and clinicians' investment of time in learning to use them [10]. However, their impact on patient care and learning outcomes is incompletely understood [4,11].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impact of Clinicians' Use of Electronic Knowledge Resources on Clinical and Learning Outcomes: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Maggio¹,

Aakre²,

Fiol³

et al. 2019

J Med Internet Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundClinicians use electronic knowledge resources, such as Micromedex, UpToDate, and Wikipedia, to deliver evidence-based care and engage in point-of-care learning. Despite this use in clinical practice, their impact on patient care and learning outcomes is incompletely understood. A comprehensive synthesis of available evidence regarding the effectiveness of electronic knowledge resources would guide clinicians, health care system administrators, medical educators, and informaticians in making evidence-based decisions about their purchase, implementation, and use.ObjectiveThe aim of this review is to quantify the impact of electronic knowledge resources on clinical and learning outcomes.MethodsWe searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Library for articles published from 1991 to 2017. Two authors independently screened studies for inclusion and extracted outcomes related to knowledge, skills, attitudes, behaviors, patient effects, and cost. We used random-effects meta-analysis to pool standardized mean differences (SMDs) across studies.ResultsOf 10,811 studies screened, we identified 25 eligible studies published between 2003 and 2016. A total of 5 studies were randomized trials, 22 involved physicians in practice or training, and 10 reported potential conflicts of interest. A total of 15 studies compared electronic knowledge resources with no intervention. Of these, 7 reported clinician behaviors, with a pooled SMD of 0.47 (95% CI 0.27 to 0.67; P<.001), and 8 reported objective patient effects with a pooled SMD of 0.19 (95% CI 0.07 to 0.32; P=.003). Heterogeneity was large (I2>50%) across studies. When compared with other resources—7 studies, not amenable to meta-analytic pooling—the use of electronic knowledge resources was associated with increased frequency of answering questions and perceived benefits on patient care, with variable impact on time to find an answer. A total of 2 studies compared different implementations of the same electronic knowledge resource.ConclusionsUse of electronic knowledge resources is associated with a positive impact on clinician behaviors and patient effects. We found statistically significant associations between the use of electronic knowledge resources and improved clinician behaviors and patient effects. When compared with other resources, the use of electronic knowledge resources was associated with increased success in answering clinical questions, with variable impact on speed. Comparisons of different implementation strategies of the same electronic knowledge resource suggest that there are benefits from allowing clinicians to choose to access the resource, versus automated display of resource information, and from integrating patient-specific information. A total of 4 studies compared different commercial electronic knowledge resources, with variable results. Resource implementation strategies can significantly influence outcomes but few studies have examined such factors.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impact of Clinicians' Use of Electronic Knowledge Resources on Clinical and Learning Outcomes: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Maggio¹,

Aakre²,

Fiol³

et al. 2019

J Med Internet Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

The trend and ripple effects of retractions in primary health care: A bibliometric analysis

Lin,

Chen,

Lin

et al. 2024

Journal of the Chinese Medical Association

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: In primary health care, the dissemination of retracted publications through literature reviews, guidelines, and recommendations can have a significant and lasting impact. Despite this potential threat, the retraction consequences and patterns in this domain have not been extensively explored. Therefore, this study investigates the characteristics and ripple effects of retracted papers in primary health care literature. Methods: Retracted publications indexed in PubMed from 1984 to 2022 in primary health care journals underwent bibliometric analysis. The dataset included detailed publication information, from which we derived annual retraction rates and examined trends by journal, authorship, and geographic origin. We further evaluated the extent of influence exerted by retracted papers through postretraction citation analysis. Results: In 44 primary health care journals, 13 articles were retracted over the study period, representing a retraction rate of 0.01%—notably lower than the aggregate rate for all PubMed journals. Despite this, we observed a recent surge in retraction frequency, especially in the last decade. The median interval to retraction was 15 months, with scientific misconduct, specifically fabrication and plagiarism, as the predominant reasons. After retraction, the articles continued to exert considerable influence, averaging 25 citations per article with a 78.1% postretraction citation prevalence. Conclusion: Retractions resulting from scientific misconduct in primary health care are increasing, with a substantial portion of such work continuing to be cited. This trend underscores the urgent need to improve research ethics and develop mechanisms that help primary care physicians discern reliable information, thereby reducing the reliance on compromised literature.

show abstract

Health sciences libraries’ subscriptions to journals: expectations of general practice departments and collection-based analysis

Cited by 2 publications

References 10 publications

Impact of Clinicians' Use of Electronic Knowledge Resources on Clinical and Learning Outcomes: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Impact of Clinicians' Use of Electronic Knowledge Resources on Clinical and Learning Outcomes: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The trend and ripple effects of retractions in primary health care: A bibliometric analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About