Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29962906›Full record

ArticleJournal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA2018

Learning while doing: program evaluation of the Medical Library Association Systematic Review Project.

Catherine Boden, Marie T Ascher, Jonathan D Eldredge

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

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 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
6.0field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Making an impact: the new 2024 Medical Library Association research agenda.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2025
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. A Systematic Scoping Review of Ethical Issues in Mentoring in Surgery.Journal of medical education and curricular development
    Article
  8. Enhancing Mentoring in Palliative Care: An Evidence Based Mentoring Framework.Journal of medical education and curricular development
    Review
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

3 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Catherine BodenAssociate Librarian, Leslie and Irene Dube Health Sciences Library, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-2187-1433
Marie T AscherLillian Hetrick Huber Endowed Director, Health Sciences Library; Assistant Professor, School of Medicine; and Assistant Professor in Epidemiology and Community Health, School of Health Sciences and Practice; New York Medical College, Valhalla, NY.
Jonathan D EldredgeAssociate Professor and Evidence Based and Translational Sciences Collaboration Coordinator, Biomedical Informatics Research, Training and Scholarship Unit, Health Sciences Library and Informatics Center, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM.
New York Medical College · USUniversity of New Mexico · USUniversity of Saskatchewan · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe Medical Library Association (MLA) Systematic Review Project aims to conduct systematic reviews to identify the state of knowledge and research gaps for fifteen top-ranked questions in the profession. In 2013, fifteen volunteer-driven teams were recruited to conduct the systematic reviews. The authors investigated the experiences of participants in this large-scale, volunteer-driven approach to answering priority research questions and fostering professional growth among health sciences librarians.

methodsA program evaluation was conducted by inviting MLA Systematic Review Project team members to complete an eleven-item online survey. Multiple-choice and short-answer questions elicited experiences about outputs, successes and challenges, lessons learned, and future directions. Participants were recruited by email, and responses were collected over a two-week period beginning at the end of January 2016.

resultsEighty (8 team leaders, 72 team members) of 198 potential respondents completed the survey. Eighty-four percent of respondents indicated that the MLA Systematic Review Project should be repeated in the future and were interested in participating in another systematic review. Team outputs included journal articles, conference presentations or posters, and sharing via social media. Thematic analysis of the short-answer questions yielded five broad themes: learning and experience, interpersonal (networking), teamwork, outcomes, and barriers. DISCUSSION: A large-scale, volunteer-driven approach to performing systematic reviews shows promise as a model for answering key questions in the profession and demonstrates the value of experiential learning for acquiring synthesis review skills and knowledge. Our project evaluation provides recommendations to optimize this approach.

Indexed as

LearningLibraries, MedicalLibrary AssociationsProgram EvaluationCooperative BehaviorHumansInterpersonal RelationsLeadershipLibrariansPersonnel SelectionProfessional CompetenceSurveys and QuestionnairesSystematic Reviews as Topic

Identifiers

PMID29962906
PMCPMC6013139
OpenAlexW2809794480

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.