Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39975495›Full record

ArticleJournal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA2025

Making an impact: the new 2024 Medical Library Association research agenda.

Marie Ascher, Margaret A Hoogland, Karen Heskett, Heather N Holmes, Jonathan D Eldredge

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA, 2025. 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. Cognitive biases as interrupters in evidence based practice decision-making.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2025
    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

5 authors.

Marie Aschermarie.ascher@nymc.edu, Lillian Hetrick Huber Endowed Director, Phillip Capozzi, MD Library, and Assistant Professor, School of Medicine and Department of Epidemiology, New York Medical College, New York, NY.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6394-1041
Margaret A HooglandMargaret.Hoogland@UToledo.edu, Associate Professor and Clinical Medical Librarian, University Libraries, The University of Toledo, Toledo, OH.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9932-3605
Karen Heskettkheskett@ucsd.edu, Medical Librarian, University of California-San Diego Library, San Diego, CA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4501-6172
Heather N Holmesholmesh@musc.edu, Associate Director of Libraries and Professor, Academic Affairs Faculty, The Medical University of South Carolina, SC.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2318-440X
Jonathan D Eldredgejeldredge@salud.unm.edu, Professor, Health Sciences Library and Informatics Center and Family & Community Medicine, School of Medicine; Associate Program Director, Clinical Informatics, Graduate Medical Education; University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3132-9450

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: This research project sought to identify those subject areas that leaders and researcher members of the Medical Library Association (MLA) determined to be of greatest importance for research investigation. It updates two previous studies conducted in 2008 and 2011. Methods: The project involved a three-step Delphi process aimed at collecting the most important and researchable questions facing the health sciences librarianship profession. First, 495 MLA leaders were asked to submit questions answerable by known research methods. Submitted questions could not exceed 50 words in length. There were 130 viable, unique questions submitted by MLA leaders. Second, the authors asked 200 eligible MLA-member researchers to select the five (5) most important and answerable questions from the list of 130 questions. Third, the same 130 MLA leaders who initially submitted questions were asked to select their top five (5) most important and answerable questions from the 36 top-ranked questions identified by the researchers. Results: The final 15 questions resulting from the three phases of the study will serve as the next priorities of the MLA Research Agenda. The authors will be facilitating the organization of teams of volunteers wishing to conduct research studies related to these identified top 15 research questions. Conclusion: The new 2024 MLA Research Agenda will enable the health information professions to allocate scarce resources toward high-yield research studies. The Agenda could be used by journal editors and annual meeting organizers to prioritize submissions for research communications. The Agenda will provide aspiring researchers with some starting points and justification for pursuing research projects on these questions.

Indexed as

Libraries, MedicalLibrary AssociationsResearchDelphi TechniqueHumansArtificial Intelligence (AI)ConsensusDelphi MethodEvidence Based PracticeImpactLeadershipQuestion FormulationResearchResearch Agenda

Identifiers

PMID39975495
PMCPMC11835027

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.