ArticlePublic services quarterly
Special libraries, special challenges: An ethical framework for access to problematic historical medical films.
Article in Public services quarterly. 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Medical films, once a staple of medical education in the twentieth century, are now scarce collection items. Many 16 mm films have been weeded from collections because of their outdated content and obsolete format, and those that remain can suffer rapid deterioration from improper storage conditions. Digitization is imperative to preserve these remnants of our cultural heritage. After digitization is complete and rights are cleared, libraries typically make their collections openly accessible online, but this practice is sometimes complicated due to the content of historical medical films. Without a mechanism to regulate patron access to films with potentially problematic content, libraries must tightly restrict these newly preserved resources. This paper presents a framework that defines problematic content based on four criteria and proposes a tiered approach to access.
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.