ArticleJournal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA2024
Large-scale systematic review support for guideline development in diabetes precision medicine.
Article in Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Background: Involving librarians as team members can lead to better quality in reviews. To improve their search results, an international diabetes project involved two medical librarians in a large-scale project planning of a series of systematic reviews for clinical guidelines in diabetes precision medicine. Case Presentation: The precision diabetes project was divided into teams. Four diabetes mellitus types (type 1, type 2, gestational, and monogenic) were divided into teams focusing on diagnostics, prevention, treatment, or prognostics. A search consultation plan was set up for the project to help organize the work. We performed searches in Embase and PubMed for 14 teams, building complex searches that involved non-traditional search strategies. Our search strategies generated very large amounts of records that created challenges in balancing sensitivity with precision. We also performed overlap searches for type 1 and type 2 diabetes search strategies; and assisted in setting up reviews in the Covidence tool for screening. Conclusions: This project gave us opportunities to test methods we had not used before, such as overlap comparisons between whole search strategies. It also gave us insights into the complexity of performing a search balancing sensitivity and specificity and highlights the need for a clearly defined communication plan for extensive evidence synthesis projects.
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.