ArticleJournal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA2025
Making an impact: the new 2024 Medical Library Association research agenda.
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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Cognitive biases as interrupters in evidence based practice decision-making.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.