bims-librar Biomed News on Biomedical librarianship
─────────────────────────────┐
Issue of 2020‒02‒02 │
nine papers selected by │
Thomas Krichel (Open Library │
Society) │
http://e.biomed.news/librar │
│
│
└──────────────────────────────────────────────────
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
1. Measures of self-efficacy among doctors in conducting an online search
for clinical decision making.
2. Title, abstract and keyword searching resulted in poor recovery of
articles in systematic reviews of epidemiologic practice.
3. Topology comparison of Twitter diffusion networks effectively reveals
misleading information.
4. A Disclosure Form for Work Submitted to Medical Journals - A Proposal
from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors.
5. Effective publication strategies in clinical research.
6. Trends, Quality, and Readability of Online Health Resources on Proton
Radiotherapy.
7. A Critical Analysis of the Information Available Online for Ménière's
Disease.
8. 'Prostate Cancer' Information on the Internet: Fact or Fiction?
9. Evaluation of the Informational Content and Readability of US Lung
Cancer Screening Program Websites.
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Health Info Libr J. 2020 Jan 27.
1. Measures of self-efficacy among doctors in conducting an online search
for clinical decision making.
Naeem SB, Bhatti R
OBJECTIVES: To measure the perceived ability and level of confidence among
doctors in performing the different tasks involved in conducting an online
search for clinical decision making.
METHODS: A large-scale cross-sectional survey was conducted in 36 District
Headquarter Hospitals (DHQs), 89 Tehsil Headquarter Hospitals (THQs), 293
Rural Health Centers (RHCs) and 2455 Basic Health Units (BHUs) in Punjab,
Pakistan. Using a quota sampling, data were collected from 517 doctors on a
set of 11 statements. The collected data were analysed statistically.
RESULTS: Of the 517 doctors, 73 (14.1%) had 'never accessed health care
information online' for clinical decision making. Mean values of the doctors'
response to the 11 statements ranged from 1.66 to 2.30 indicating that most
of the doctors were 'not confident' in their ability to perform the tasks.
CONCLUSION: The majority of doctors perceived themselves able to perform the
different tasks involved in conducting an online search. Age and working
experience were significant factors in the perception of their ability in
performing the tasks. The study recommends promotional and educational
activities to motivate interest, increase awareness, develop knowledge and
skills for doctors to access information that would help in their clinical
decision making.
Keywords: Asia, South; database searching; doctors; health professionals;
information literacy
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/hir.12289
URL: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31984631
J Clin Epidemiol. 2020 Jan 23. pii: S0895-4356(19)30601-8.
2. Title, abstract and keyword searching resulted in poor recovery of
articles in systematic reviews of epidemiologic practice.
Penning de Vries BBL, van Smeden M, Rosendaal FR, Groenwold RHH
OBJECTIVE: Article full texts are often inaccessible via the standard search
engines of biomedical literature, such as PubMed and Embase, which are
commonly used for systematic reviews. Excluding the full text bodies from a
literature search may result in a small or selective subset of articles being
included in the review because of the limited information that is available
in only title, abstract and keywords. This article describes a comparison of
search strategies based on a systematic literature review of all manuscripts
published in 5 top-ranked epidemiology journals between 2000 and 2017.
STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Based on a text-mining approach, we studied whether
9 different methodological topics were mentioned across text fields (title,
abstract, keywords, and text body). The following methodological topics were
studied: propensity score methods, inverse probability weighting, marginal
structural modelling, multiple imputation, Kaplan-Meier estimation, number
needed to treat, measurement error, randomized controlled trial, and latent
class analysis.
RESULTS: In total, 31,641 Hypertext Markup Language (HTML) files were
downloaded from the journals' websites. For all methodological topics and
journals, at most 50% of articles with a mention of a topic in the text body
also mentioned the topic in the title, abstract or keywords. For each topic,
a gradual decrease over calendar time was observed of reporting in the title,
abstract or keywords.
CONCLUSION: Literature searches based on title, abstract and keywords alone
may not be sufficiently sensitive for studies of epidemiological research
practice. This study also illustrates the potential value of full text
literature searches, provided there is accessibility of full text bodies for
literature searches.
Keywords: Systematic literature review; bibliometrics; epidemiological
methods; statistical methods; text mining
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.01.009
URL: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31982541
Sci Rep. 2020 Jan 28. 10(1): 1372
3. Topology comparison of Twitter diffusion networks effectively reveals
misleading information.
Pierri F, Piccardi C, Ceri S
In recent years, malicious information had an explosive growth in social
media, with serious social and political backlashes. Recent important
studies, featuring large-scale analyses, have produced deeper knowledge about
this phenomenon, showing that misleading information spreads faster, deeper
and more broadly than factual information on social media, where echo
chambers, algorithmic and human biases play an important role in diffusion
networks. Following these directions, we explore the possibility of
classifying news articles circulating on social media based exclusively on a
topological analysis of their diffusion networks. To this aim we collected a
large dataset of diffusion networks on Twitter pertaining to news articles
published on two distinct classes of sources, namely outlets that convey
mainstream, reliable and objective information and those that fabricate and
disseminate various kinds of misleading articles, including false news
intended to harm, satire intended to make people laugh, click-bait news that
may be entirely factual or rumors that are unproven. We carried out an
extensive comparison of these networks using several alignment-free
approaches including basic network properties, centrality measures
distributions, and network distances. We accordingly evaluated to what extent
these techniques allow to discriminate between the networks associated to the
aforementioned news domains. Our results highlight that the communities of
users spreading mainstream news, compared to those sharing misleading news,
tend to shape diffusion networks with subtle yet systematic differences which
might be effectively employed to identify misleading and harmful information.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-58166-5
URL: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31992754
N Engl J Med. 2020 Jan 27.
4. A Disclosure Form for Work Submitted to Medical Journals - A Proposal
from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors.
Taichman DB, Backus J, Baethge C, Bauchner H, Flanagin A, Florenzano F,
Frizelle FA, Godlee F, Gollogly L, Haileamlak A, Hong ST, Horton R, James
A, Laine C, Miller PW, Pinborg A, Rubin EJ, Sahni P
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMe2000647
URL: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31986241
PLoS One. 2020 ;15(1): e0228438
5. Effective publication strategies in clinical research.
Deutz DB, Vlachos E, Drongstrup D, Dorch BF, Wien C
Researchers in Europe are increasingly assessed by their publication metrics.
To uncover the effect of quantitative assessment on the publication
strategies of clinical researchers in Denmark, we interviewed 9 senior
researchers at the Department of Clinical Research at the University of
Southern Denmark with the lowest and highest values for a, as defined by
Hirsch. Our aim is to investigate the importance of these metrics to their
academic careers: h-index, number of publications, number of citations,
international collaborations, local collaborations, field specific journal
publishing and high journal impact factor publishing. To validate our
findings we compared their publication record to their statistically analyzed
stated publication strategy. Our results indicate two styles of publication
strategy used by these senior researchers. Researchers with Low a engage in
local collaborations, disseminate knowledge in local media and publish in
field specific journals, while researchers with High a engage in
international collaborations, invest significant time in publishing in the
highest impact journals in their field, and acquire a greater number of
citations. Both publication strategies can lead to a successful academic
career, yet we have an indication through the h5-index that the practices of
the High a group are more likely to nudge the h-index.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228438
URL: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31999763
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2020 Jan 24. pii: S0360-3016(20)30061-4.
6. Trends, Quality, and Readability of Online Health Resources on Proton
Radiotherapy.
Sha ST, Perni S, Muralidhar V, Mahal BA, Sanford NN, Nguyen PL, Dee EC
OBJECTIVES: Many patients weighing cancer treatment options may consider
relatively novel options including proton radiotherapy (PRT) and turn to the
Internet for online health resources (OHR). However, quality and readability
of OHR for radiation oncology therapies has been shown to need improvement.
As the OHR patients access can influence their treatment decisions, our study
sought to understand the patterns of use, quality, and readability of OHR on
PRT.
METHODS: To validate the need to assess OHR on PRT, we assessed US search
patterns for the search phrase "proton therapy" using Google Trends. The
Google search engine was then queried for websites with PRT information using
ten search phrases. The subsequent websites were analyzed for readability by
the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL) and a Composite Grade Level metric
comprised of five readability metrics. Quality was analyzed using the DISCERN
instrument.
RESULTS: Search volume index for "proton therapy" increased by an average of
2.0% each year for the last 15 years (January 1, 2005 to June 1, 2019,
P<0.001). States that had a greater number of proton centers tended to have a
greater relative search volume in Google (P< 0.001). Of the 45 unique
websites identified, the mean FKGL was 12.0 (7.3-18.6) and the mean Composite
Grade Level was 12.4 (range 7-18). 80% of PRT pages required greater than
11th grade Composite Grade Level. The mean DISCERN score of all websites was
39.7, which corresponds to "fair"-quality OHR.
CONCLUSION: Despite increasing interest in PRT OHR, in general, PRT websites
require reading levels much higher than currently recommended, making PRT OHR
less accessible to the average patient. Provision of high quality PRT OHR at
the appropriate reading level may increase comprehension of PRT and improve
patient autonomy and informed decision among radiation oncology patients.
Keywords: Proton radiotherapy; online health resources; patient education;
radiation oncology
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2019.12.043
URL: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31987973
Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2020 Jan 28. 194599819901150
7. A Critical Analysis of the Information Available Online for Ménière's
Disease.
Bojrab DI, Fritz C, Babu S, Lin KF
OBJECTIVE: Patients increasingly rely on online resources for medical
information; however, the Internet is unregulated and prone to
misinformation. This study analyzes the reliability, quality, and readability
of websites for Ménière's disease.
STUDY DESIGN: A Google search was performed using keywords Ménière's disease.
The first 5 pages (50 results) were reviewed. Websites were sorted into 5
categories: academic institutions, government agencies, professional
organizations, medical information websites, and miscellaneous. The
reliability, quality, and readability of each website were evaluated using
the DISCERN instrument and Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL). DISCERN
assesses reliability and quality by scoring 15 questions on a scale from 1
(low) to 3 (high). The reliability score emphasizes clear objectives and
sources, as well as lack of bias, whereas the quality score emphasizes
information on treatment options. The FKGL of each website was calculated
using a formula to determine the equivalent US grade reading level.
SETTING: Ambulatory.
SUBJECTS: None.
RESULTS: Forty-two websites were analyzed. Academic institutions were the
most common (n = 13, 31%) but scored the lowest using DISCERN at 1.75 ± 0.13.
Medical information websites scored highest at 2.24 ± 0.09 (P = .024 compared
to academic institutions). The average FKGL of all websites was 10.12 ± 0.57
with medical information websites being the easiest to read at 8.84 ± 0.83.
Only 5 (13%) of websites scored below the eighth-grade reading level.
CONCLUSIONS: Most top online search results for Ménière's disease are
deficient in quality and readability. Medical information websites are
generally the most reliable and easy to read.
Keywords: DISCERN index; Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level; Ménière’s disease;
online patient education; readability
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0194599819901150
URL: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31986955
Curr Urol. 2020 Jan;13(4): 200-208
8. 'Prostate Cancer' Information on the Internet: Fact or Fiction?
Moolla Y, Adam A, Perera M, Lawrentschuk N
Background/Aims: In today's information era, patients often seek information
regarding health using the internet. We assessed reliability and validity of
internet information regarding 'prostate cancer'.
Methods: Search term 'prostate cancer' used on Google website (June 2017).
Critical analysis was performed on first 100 hits using JAMA benchmarks,
DISCERN score, Health on the Net.
Results: 33 500 000 hits returned. Top 100 hits were critically analyzed. Ten
links [duplicate links (n = 7), book reviews (n = 1), dead sites (n = 2)]
were excluded, therefore 90 were analyzed. Subcategories assessed included:
commercial (53.33%), university/medical center (24.44%), government (13.33%);
non-governmental/ non-profit organizations (8.89%). Sub-type of information
content assessed included: factual (74.44%), clinical trials (18.89%);
stories (5.56%); question and answer (1.11%). Website rated as HONcode seal
positive (14,44%) or seal negative (85,56%). Website content based on JAMA
benchmarks: 0 benchmarks (4.44%), 1 benchmark (16.67%), 2 benchmarks
(34.44%), 3 benchmarks (27.78%), 4 benchmarks (16.67%). DISCERN score rated:
'low' score (16-32) = 12 websites (13.33%), 'moderate' score (33-64 points) =
68 websites (75.56%), 'high' score (≥ 65 points) = 10 websites (11.11%).
Conclusion: Critical assessment of 'Prostate Cancer' information on the
internet, showed that overall quality was observed to be accurate, however
majority of individual websites are unreliable as a source of information by
itself for patients. Doctors and patients need to be aware of this 'quality
vs quantity' discrepancy when sourcing PCa information on the internet.
Keywords: DISCERN score; Health on the Net seal; Internet information
quality; JAMA Benchmarks; Prostate cancer
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1159/000499271
URL: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31998052
JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Jan 03. 3(1): e1920431
9. Evaluation of the Informational Content and Readability of US Lung
Cancer Screening Program Websites.
Gagne SM, Fintelmann FJ, Flores EJ, McDermott S, Mendoza DP, Petranovic M,
Price MC, Stowell JT, Little BP
Importance: The internet is an important source of medical information for
many patients and may have a key role in the education of patients about lung
cancer screening (LCS). Although most LCS programs in the United States have
informational websites, the accuracy, completeness, and readability of these
websites have not previously been studied.
Objective: To evaluate the informational content and readability of US LCS
program websites.
Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study assessed US LCS
program websites identified on September 15, 2018. A standardized checklist
was used to assess key informational content of each website, and text was
analyzed for reading level, word count, and reading time. Links to US
websites of national advocacy organizations with LCS program content were
tabulated. All functional LCS program websites in Google internet search
engine results using the search terms lung cancer screening, low-dose CT
screening, and lung screening were included in the analysis.
Main Outcomes and Measures: Radiologists used a standardized checklist to
evaluate content, and readability was assessed with validated scales. Website
word count, reading time, and number of links to outside LCS informational
websites were assessed.
Results: A total of 257 LCS websites were included in the analysis. The word
count ranged from 73 to 4410 (median, 571; interquartile range, 328-909). The
reading time ranged from 0.3 to 19.6 minutes (median, 2.5; interquartile
range, 1.5-4.0). The median reading level of all websites was grade 10
(interquartile range, 9-11). Only 26% (n = 66) of websites had at least 1 web
link to a national website with additional information on LCS. There was wide
variability regarding reported eligibility age criteria, with ages 55 to 77
years most frequently cited (42% [n = 108]). Only 56% (n = 143) of websites
mentioned smoking cessation. The subject of patient cost was mentioned on 75%
(n = 192) of websites. Although major LCS benefits, such as detection of lung
cancer, were discussed by most (93% [n = 239]) websites, less than half of
the websites (45% [n = 115]) made any mention of possible risks associated
with screening.
Conclusions and Relevance: There appears to be marked variability in the
informational content of US LCS program websites, and the reading level of
most websites is above that recommended by the American Medical Association
and the National Institutes of Health. Efforts to improve website content and
readability may be warranted.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.20431
URL: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32003825
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
########################################################################
To unsubscribe from the LIS-MEDICAL list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=LIS-MEDICAL&A=1
|
