bims-librar Biomed news
on Biomedical Librarianship
Issue of 2018‒03‒04
two papers selected by
Thomas Krichel
Open Library Society

  1. Public Health. 2018 Feb 22. pii: S0033-3506(18)30004-0. [Epub ahead of print]157 50-52
    Hamwela V, Ahmed W, Bath PA.
      OBJECTIVES: The study identified available websites on malaria in pregnancy on the World Wide Web and sought to evaluate their readability and information quality.STUDY DESIGN: A purposeful sample of websites were selected which provided information on Malaria in pregnancy.
    METHODS: A total of 31 websites were identified from searches using Google, Yahoo and Bing search engines. Two generic tools (Discern and HON), one specific tool designed to assess information quality of malaria in pregnancy and readability tests (Flesch Reading Ease and Flesh-Kincaid Grade level) were used to evaluate the websites.
    RESULTS: Most of the websites scored below 50% with the HON Code tool, with most lacking information on the symptoms. One website scored over 70 with the reading ease with two (2) achieving a score of 7 for the reading level test. The readability of the websites was too advanced for an ordinary consumer.
    CONCLUSION: The results of this study indicated that the information quality of malaria in pregnancy websites varied from fair to medium. It was also found that the readability of the websites was too advanced for an ordinary consumer. These findings suggest that most websites are not comprehensive in addressing all the relevant aspects of malaria in pregnancy.
    Keywords:  Information quality; Malaria; Malaria in pregnancy; Online health information
  2. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018 Feb 21. pii: S0895-4356(17)30742-4. [Epub ahead of print]
    Faggion CM, Huivin R, Aranda L, Pandis N, Alarcon M.
      OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether the reporting of search strategies and the primary study selection process in dental systematic reviews is reproducible.STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A survey of systematic reviews published in MEDLINE-indexed dental journals from June 2015 to June 2016 was conducted. Study selection was performed independently by two authors and the reproducibility of the selection process was assessed using a tool consisting of 12 criteria. Regression analyses were implemented to evaluate any associations between degrees of reporting (measured by the number of items positively answered) and journal impact factor (IF), presence of meta-analysis and number of citations of the systematic review in Google Scholar.
    RESULTS: Five hundred and thirty systematic reviews were identified. Following our 12 criteria, none of the systematic reviews had complete reporting of the search strategies and selection process. Eight (1.5%) systematic reviews reported the list of excluded articles (with reasons for exclusion) after title and abstract assessment. Systematic reviews with more positive answers to the criteria were significantly associated with higher journal IF, number of citations, and inclusion of meta-analysis.
    CONCLUSION: Search strategies and primary study selection process in systematic reviews published in MEDLINE-indexed dental journals may not be fully reproducible.
    Keywords:  PRISMA; methods; reproducibility of search and primary study selection strategy; systematic review