Measuring the value and impact of health sciences libraries: planning an update and replication of the Rochester Study.

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

1. Rural providers' access to online resources: a randomized controlled trial.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2016
   Trial
2. Validation of a generic impact survey for use by health library services indicates the reliability of the questionnaire.Health information and libraries journal · 2022
   Article
3. Clinical usefulness of library and information services in Japan: The detailed use and value of information in clinical settings.PloS one · 2018
   Article
4. The value of library and information services in patient care: results of a multisite study.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2013
   Article

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Funding

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as