ArticleJournal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA2015
An extensible and successful method of identifying collaborators for National Library of Medicine informationist projects.
Article in Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- How to earn a reputation as a great partner.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2018Article
- NIH support of mobile, imaging, pervasive sensing, social media and location tracking (MISST) research: laying the foundation to examine research ethics in the digital age.NPJ digital medicine · 2018Article
- Improving data collection, documentation, and workflow in a dementia screening study.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2017Article
- Assessing the National Library of Medicine's Informationist Awards.Journal of escience librarianship · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
question/purposeThe New York University (NYU) Health Sciences Library used a new method to arrange in-depth discussions with basic science researchers. The objective was to identify collaborators for a new National Library of Medicine administrative supplement.
settingThe research took place at the NYU Health Sciences Library.
methodsUsing the National Institutes of Health (NIH) RePORTER, forty-four researchers were identified and later contacted through individualized emails.
resultsNine researchers responded to the email followed by six in-person or phone discussions. At the conclusion of this process, two researchers submitted applications for supplemental funding, and both of these applications were successful.
conclusionsThis method confirmed these users could benefit from the skills and knowledge of health sciences librarians, but they are largely unaware of this.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.