 |
 |
Dear all, Very good discussion! We developed an study regarding the relevance of health information to the clinical practice... Galvao, M. C. B., Ricarte, I. L. M., Grad, R. M. and Pluye, P. (2013), The Clinical Relevance of Information Index (CRII): assessing the relevance of health information to the clinical practice. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 30: 110–120. doi: 10.1111/hir.12021 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/hir.12021/abstract Background: The high volume of health information creates a need for processes and tools to select, evaluate and disseminate relevant information to health professionals in clinical practice. Objectives: To introduce an index of the clinical relevance of information and to show that it is different from existing measures. Methods: A conceptual model of knowledge translation was developed to explain the need for a new index, whose application was verified by an exploratory study with two (quantitative and qualitative) phases. The Clinical Relevance of Information Index (CRII) was defined employing descriptive statistical analyses of assessments performed by health professionals. The model and the CRII were applied in a primary healthcare context. Results: The CRII was applied to 4574 relevance assessments of 194 evidence synopses. The assessments were performed by 41 family physicians in 2008. The CRII value of each synopsis was compared with the number of citations received by its corresponding research paper and with the level of evidence of the study, presenting weak correlation with both. Conclusion: The CRII captures aspects of information not considered by other indices. It can be a parameter for information providers, institutions, editors, as well as health and information professionals targeting knowledge translation. Best, Cris On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 2:44 PM, Dr Kaushal Tiwari <[log in to unmask]>wrote: > We all know, mostly by our personal experience, how biased are these > publication houses. There are bundles of articles published in very reputed > journals, which are in fact doesn't have any practical use or are simply > lacking originality, but are published because they are either sponsored or > coming from reputed institution. > The truth is Medical publication needs to be revolutionize. > Regards > Kaushal > > __________________________________________ > *Dr Kaushal K Tiwari, MD (Hons), MS, IMCS, PhD* > Cardiac Surgeon > The Salam Center for Cardiac Surgery > A Project of "Emergency" iNGO > Soba Hilla, Khartoum > Sudan > Mobile - +249969287841 > > Sent from my iPad > > On 25/set/2013, at 16:55, Jordan Panayotov <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > Dear Mayer, > > I have realized that academic publishing has become predominantly (if not > exclusively) an instrument for getting public money (grants). Other goals, > such as improving health of whole populations, for example, have become at > best collateral benefit. Currently, in this process objectivity and/or > constructive criticism play little or no role, or, as it is in your case, > are not welcomed. > > The whole system needs a complete overhaul. > > Jordan > ******** > Jordan Panayotov, MEc, MPH (Health Economics) > Director > Independent Centre for Analysis & Research of Economies > Melbourne, Australia > www.icare.biz > [log in to unmask] > > Chair > Global Working Group on Climate Change and Health > IUHPE > www.iuhpe.org > > ============= > Important Notice: > This message and its attachments are confidential and may contain > information which is protected by copyright. It is intended solely for the > named addressee. If you are not the authorised recipient (or responsible > for delivery of the message to the authorised recipient), you must not use, > disclose, print, copy or deliver this message or its attachments to anyone. > If you receive this email in error, please contact the sender immediately > and permanently delete this message and its attachments from your system. > > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Mayer Brezis <[log in to unmask]> > *To:* [log in to unmask] > *Sent:* Wednesday, September 25, 2013 4:14 PM > *Subject:* Lack of virtual space for criticism > > > Hi: > > > > I wish to share with this group a frustrating rejection by an editorial > office to publish a letter criticizing methods and conclusion of a > published article – because of “lack of space”. Isn’t the argument " lack > of space" preposterous, anachronistic and patronizingly outrageous when > space is virtual? (or mostly limited by ads in a printed version). The > rejected letter is copied below but my general question is about a proper > policy for medical journals: shouldn’t they encourage free exchange of > criticism (as the BMJ)? > > Thanks, > > Mayer > > > > Mayer Brezis, MD MPH > Professor of Medicine > Director, Center for Clinical Quality & Safety > Hadassah Hebrew University Medical Center > Jerusalem, Israel > Office phone 02-6777110; cellular 050-787-4596 > > Website<http://hadassahold.consistdev.com/English/Eng_SubNavBar/Departments/Medical+Services/Quality+Safety+and+Data+Center/> > > > > *The letter: * > > > > We question the authors’ conclusion that an intensive lifestyle > intervention does not reduce cardiovascular events among overweight > diabetic patients.1 As their results included a subgroup analysis for > patients with cardiovascular disease at baseline, this interpretation seems > to contradict consistent > 25% reductions in all-cause and cardiac > mortality as well in cardiac morbidity from a systematic review of 23 > trials on lifestyle modification in 11,085 randomized coronary heart > disease patients.2 The paper reveals no information on the effect of the > intervention on actual physical activity (pedometers were given to patients > but data are not shown). Physical fitness was low, somewhat increased for a > couple of years and then reverted to baseline, but is not reported for most > of the ensuing years. Since adherence appears to have been low, a > per-protocol analysis might have enriched our understanding beyond an > intention-to-treat analysis. As for medications, poor adherence is common > and deserves better accounting.3 We suggest rephrasing the conclusion to > say that a limited lifestyle intervention focused on weight loss had little > impact of cardiovascular events. > > > > Naama Constantini, MD, DFM, FACSM, Dip. Sport Med. (CASM) Mayer Brezis, > MD, MPH Hadassah Hebrew University Medical Center Jerusalem, Israel > > Robert Sallis, MD Department of Family Medicine and Sports Medicine Kaiser > Permanente Medical Center Fontana, CA, USA > > > > 1. The Look AHEAD Research Group. Cardiovascular effects of intensive > lifestyle intervention in type 2 diabetes. New England Journal of Medicine > 2013;369:145-54. > > 2. Janssen V, Gucht VD, Dusseldorp E, Maes S. Lifestyle modification > programmes for patients with coronary heart disease : a systematic review > and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. European Journal of > Preventive Cardiology 2013;20:620-40. > > 3. Osterberg L, Blaschke T. Adherence to medication. New England Journal > of Medicine 2005;353:487-97. > > > > > > *Editor’s response:* > > > > I am sorry that we will not be able to print your recent letter to the > editor regarding the Wing article of 11-Jul-2013. The space available for > correspondence is very limited, and we must use our judgment to present a > representative selection of the material received. Many worthwhile > communications must be declined for lack of space. > > > > Thank you for your interest in the Journal. > > > > Sincerely, > > > > Deputy Editor > > > > New England Journal of Medicine > > 10 Shattuck Street > > Boston, MA 02115 > > (617) 734-9800 > > Fax: (617) 739-9864 > > http://www.nejm.org > > > > > > -- Prof.Dr. Maria Cristiane Barbosa Galvao University of Sao Paulo - Brazil E-mail: [log in to unmask]