ArticleJournal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA2018
Evaluating the impact of clinical librarians on clinical questions during inpatient rounds.
Article in Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Enhancing patient care: the power of librarian-mediated literature reviews.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2026Article
- MLA Research Training Institute (RTI) 2018 and 2019: participant research confidence and program effectiveness.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2024Article
- Exploring interprofessional collaboration and attitudes of health sciences librarians.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2020Article
- Evaluation of literature searching and article selection skills of an evidence-based practice team.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2020Article
- The Research Role of the Librarian at a Community Health Hackathon - A Technical Report.Journal of medical systems · 2019Article
- Report from the Medical Library Association's InSight Initiative Summit 2: Meeting the Evolving Information Needs of Library Stakeholders.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe investigation sought to determine the effects of a clinical librarian (CL) on inpatient team clinical questioning quality and quantity, learner self-reported literature searching skills, and use of evidence-based medicine (EBM).
methodsClinical questioning was observed over 50 days of inpatient pediatric and internal medicine attending rounds. A CL was present for 25 days and absent for 25 days. Questioning was compared between groups. Question quality was assessed by a blinded evaluator, who used a rubric adapted from the Fresno Test of Competence in Evidence-Based Medicine. Team members were surveyed to assess perceived impacts of the CL on rounds.
resultsRounds with a CL (CLR) were associated with significantly increased median number of questions asked (5 questions CLR vs. 3 NCLR;
conclusionsInpatient CLR were associated with more and improved clinical questioning and subjectively perceived to improve clinicians' EBM skills. CLs may directly affect patient care; further study is required to assess this. CLs on inpatient rounds may be an effective means for clinicians to learn and use EBM skills.
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.