Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28031927›Full record

ArticleFuture science OA2015

Making literature reviews more ethical: a researcher and health sciences librarian collaborative process.

Bejoy Thomas, Admasu Tachble, Delshani Peiris, Rebecca Malhi, Glenys Godlovitch, Yongtao Lin

Abstract readCase Reports
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Future science OA, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Welcome to volume 2 ofFuture science OA · 2016
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

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

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Bejoy ThomasDepartment of Psychosocial & Rehabilitation Oncology, Tom Baker Cancer Centre, CancerContol Alberta, Alberta Health Services, Calgary, AB, T2S 3CI, Canada; Department of Oncology, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, T2N 1N4, Canada; Department of Psychosocial & Rehabilitation Oncology, Tom Baker Cancer Centre, CancerContol Alberta, Alberta Health Services, Calgary, AB, T2S 3CI, Canada; Department of Oncology, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, T2N 1N4, Canada.
Admasu TachbleDepartment of Oncology, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, T2N 1N4, Canada; Department of Oncology, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, T2N 1N4, Canada.
Delshani PeirisDepartment of Oncology, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, T2N 1N4, Canada; Department of Oncology, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, T2N 1N4, Canada.
Rebecca MalhiDepartment of Oncology, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, T2N 1N4, Canada; Department of Oncology, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, T2N 1N4, Canada.
Glenys GodlovitchAlberta Cancer Research Ethics Committee, CancerContol Alberta, Alberta Health Services, Calgary, AB, T2N 1N4, Canada; Alberta Cancer Research Ethics Committee, CancerContol Alberta, Alberta Health Services, Calgary, AB, T2N 1N4, Canada.
Yongtao LinKnowledge Resource Service, Knowledge Management Department, Tom Baker Cancer Centre, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, T2N 1N4, Canada; Knowledge Resource Service, Knowledge Management Department, Tom Baker Cancer Centre, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, T2N 1N4, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWith emphasis on evidence-based medical care, 'evidence' is often the result of literature reviews. Hence, the critical question, "are literature reviews comprehensive?"

aimThis study compares the literature generated by a researcher and a health sciences librarian (HSL).

methodsThe Research Associate and the HSL conducted a parallel, segregated literature search on 'patient-centered care'.

resultsThe Research Associate identified 215 manuscripts, and the HSL 129 manuscripts. Overlap was only 55 manuscripts. Differences in process and blind spots are discussed.

conclusionTo improve the quality of research outcomes, it seems prudent and ethical to have a synergistic collaboration between researchers and HSLs. Given that this is just one case study that has looked into the issue, further research is strongly encouraged.

Indexed as

collaborationethicsevidence-based practicehealth sciences librarianliterature searchmalignant neoplasmsystematic reviews

Identifiers

PMID28031927
PMCPMC5138015

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.