bims-librar Biomed news
on Biomedical librarianship
Issue of 2018‒10‒07
four papers selected by
Thomas Krichel
Open Library Society

  1. Can J Diabetes. 2018 Oct;pii: S1499-2671(18)30694-4. [Epub ahead of print]42(5): 457-458
    Chandrakumar A, 't Jong GW, Klassen TP.
  2. Semin Oncol Nurs. 2018 Sep 26. pii: S0749-2081(18)30060-3. [Epub ahead of print]
    Vrabel M, Gann L.
      OBJECTIVES: To provide an overview of the literature review process and current information resources relevant to oncology nursing topics.DATA SOURCES: Books, databases, journals, LibGuides, point-of-care tools, practice guidelines, statistical Websites, personal experience.
    CONCLUSION: Searching for information requires knowledge and familiarity with pivotal resources and best practices for accessing and using these resources. Colleagues and medical librarians can provide searching assistance and guidance for novice nurse authors.
    IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE: Developing fluency and awareness of information resources in the field of oncology eases the way for nurses to participate in publishing.
    Keywords:  bibliographic; databases; librarians; neoplasms; oncology nursing; publications; review literature as topic
  3. J Surg Educ. 2018 Sep 26. pii: S1931-7204(17)30303-3. [Epub ahead of print]
    Freeman T, Shelke N, Rajani R.
      BACKGROUND: Due to orthopedic surgery's unique educational model, recent changes within graduate medical education have the potential to impact the methods and outcomes of specialty training significantly. Using Mind the Gap: Representation of Medical Education in Cardiology-Related Articles and Journals (Allred et al., 2016) as a framework, this study investigates educational research within the field of orthopedics.OBJECTIVE: Two main objectives were evaluated: (1) quantitative analysis of the amount and type of orthopedic education-related research in orthopedic, general surgery, and medical education journals and (2) estimate the priority of orthopedic journals to publish education-focused articles.
    METHODS: Using a composite citation-based 5-metric scoring system, a complete list of journals pertaining to orthopedics, nonorthopedic specific surgery journals, and general medical education journals was ranked. All publications during 2015 for the selected cohort of journals were then analyzed for orthopedic education-related publications. Aim and scope of the top 15 selected orthopedic journals (along with the mission statements of their associated societies) were evaluated with a word cloud generator to determine priority on education.
    RESULTS: Review of 7112 articles from the top 15 selected orthopedic journals yielded 37 publications with an educational focus. Evaluation of 15 general surgery or medical education journals, containing 4661 publications, generated an additional 28 positive articles. In total, 51 unique orthopedic education-related publications (0.43% of total evaluated articles) were identified from the 11,773 articles published in the selected 30 journals for 2015.
    CONCLUSION: The lack of emphasis on orthopedic educational research output is multifactorial, needing further evaluation to determine specific causes and methods of improvement. This article adequately sheds light on the need to increase support of educational research programs within the field of orthopedics.
    Keywords:  Medical Knowledge; Patient Care; Practice-Based Learning and Improvement; education; graduate [I02.358.337.350]; graduate [I02.358.399.350]; medical; orthopedic surgeons [M01.526.485.810.910.875]; orthopedics [H02.403.810.494]
  4. World Neurosurg. 2018 Sep 27. pii: S1878-8750(18)32196-X. [Epub ahead of print]
    Post AF, Li AY, Dai JB, Maniya AY, Haider S, Sobotka S, Choudhri TF.
      OBJECTIVE: Spinal surgery is taught and practiced within two different surgical disciplines, Neurological Surgery (NS) and Orthopedic Surgery (OS). This article provides a unified analysis of academic productivity measured by h-index attributable to spine-focused faculty at U.S. residency programs.METHODS: 278 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) training programs were assessed to identify 923 full-time faculty members with spinal surgery designation defined by spine fellowship training or case volume >75% in spine surgery. Faculty were assessed with respect to academic rank, years in practice, and academic productivity (h-index).
    RESULTS: Comparison showed a significantly higher mean h-index for neurological spine surgeons. Mean h-index for both disciplines increased significantly as faculty rank increased. Within academic ranks of assistant and associate professor, neurological spine surgeons had significantly higher mean h-indices. Neurological spine surgeons had a significantly lower mean years in practice. At all ranks except assistant professor, mean years in practice was not statistically different between neurological spine and orthopedic spine surgeons. A positive correlation between h-index and years in practice was found for both spine surgical disciplines. Proportional odds models for neurological and orthopedic spine surgeons were moderately successful at predicting faculty rank based on h-index.
    CONCLUSIONS: We present a unified picture of academic productivity measured by h-index among neurosurgical and orthopedic surgery spine faculty, with some noticeable differences. Results may be used for benchmark purposes to assess the relative productivity of its faculty and may be of interest to those pursuing academic opportunities in spine surgery.
    Keywords:  academic neurosurgery; academic orthopedic surgery; bibliometrics; h index; spine surgery