Search

Background: Treatment effects differ across patients. To guide selection of treatments for patients, it is essential to acknowledge these differences and identify moderators or predictors. Our aim was to generate optimal search strategies (commonly known as filters) for PubMed to retrieve papers identifying moderators and predictors of treatment effects. Methods: Six journals were hand‐searched for articles on moderators or predictors. Selected articles were randomly allocated to a development and validation set. Search terms were extracted from the development set and tested for their performance. Search filters were created from combinations of these terms and tested in the validation set. Results: Of 4407 articles, 198 were considered to be relevant. The most sensitive filter in the development set '("Epidemiologic Methods" [MeSH] OR assign* OR control*[tiab] OR trial*[tiab]) AND therapy*[sh]' yielded in the validation set a sensitivity of 89% [88%–90%] and a specificity of 80% [79%–82%]. Conclusions: The search filters created in this study can help to efficiently retrieve evidence on moderators and predictors of treatment effect. Testing of the filters in multiple domains should reveal robustness across disciplines. These filters can facilitate the retrieval of evidence on moderators and predictors of treatment effects, helping the implementation of stratified or personalised health care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background In recognising the potential value of theory in understanding how interventions work comes a challenge - how to make identification of theory less haphazard? Objectives To explore the feasibility of systematic identification of theory. Method We searched PubMed for published reviews (1998-2012) that had explicitly sought to identify theory. Systematic searching may be characterised by a structured question, methodological filters and an itemised search procedure. We constructed a template (BeHEMoTh - Behaviour of interest; Health context; Exclusions; Models or Theories) for use when systematically identifying theory. The authors tested the template within two systematic reviews. Results Of 34 systematic reviews, only 12 reviews (35%) reported a method for identifying theory. Nineteen did not specify how they identified studies containing theory. Data were unavailable for three reviews. Candidate terms include concept(s)/conceptual, framework(s), model(s), and theory/theories/theoretical. Information professionals must overcome inadequate reporting and the use of theory out of context. The review team faces an additional concern in lack of 'theory fidelity'. Conclusions Based on experience with two systematic reviews, the BeHEMoTh template and procedure offers a feasible and useful approach for identification of theory. Applications include realist synthesis, framework synthesis or review of complex interventions. The procedure requires rigorous evaluation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Systematic review methodologies can be harnessed to help researchers to understand and explain how complex interventions may work. Typically, when reviewing complex interventions, a review team will seek to understand the theories that underpin an intervention and the specific context for that intervention. A single published report from a research project does not typically contain this required level of detail. A review team may find it more useful to examine a “study cluster”; a group of related papers that explore and explain various features of a single project and thus supply necessary detail relating to theory and/or context. We sought to conduct a preliminary investigation, from a single case study review, of techniques required to identify a cluster of related research reports, to document the yield from such methods, and to outline a systematic methodology for cluster searching. Methods: In a systematic review of community engagement we identified a relevant project – the Gay Men’s Task Force. From a single “key pearl citation” we conducted a series of related searches to find contextually or theoretically proximate documents. We followed up Citations, traced Lead authors, identified Unpublished materials, searched Google Scholar, tracked Theories, undertook ancestry searching for Early examples and followed up Related projects (embodied in the CLUSTER mnemonic). Results: Our structured, formalised procedure for cluster searching identified useful reports that are not typically identified from topic-based searches on bibliographic databases. Items previously rejected by an initial sift were subsequently found to inform our understanding of underpinning theory (for example Diffusion of Innovations Theory), context or both. Relevant material included book chapters, a Web-based process evaluation, and peer reviewed reports of projects sharing a common ancestry. We used these reports to understand the context for the intervention and to explore explanations for its relative lack of success. Additional data helped us to challenge simplistic assumptions on the homogeneity of the target population. Conclusions: A single case study suggests the potential utility of cluster searching, particularly for reviews that depend on an understanding of context, e.g. realist synthesis. The methodology is transparent, explicit and reproducible. There is no reason to believe that cluster searching is not generalizable to other review topics. Further research should examine the contribution of the methodology beyond improved yield, to the final synthesis and interpretation, possibly by utilizing qualitative sensitivity analysis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To characterise the training needs of those providing clinical question answering services (CQAS). Participants: Seventeen specialist UK staff working in CQAS, 21 from general health library UK staff and eight international respondents. Methodology: A literature review examined documented training needs for CQAS staff. A follow-up questionnaire examined prior training and experience and identified training needs for the surveyed staff. Results/outcomes: Ninety per cent of CQAS staff had worked in health services for 3 years or longer. Training received in preparation for the CQAS role comprised literature searching (including the PRECEPT/ADEPT and cochrane library courses) and critical appraisal. Skills considered ‘essential’ for clinical question answering were ‘literature searching’ (100%), ‘understanding the context of clinical questions’, ‘bibliographic databases’, ‘evidence-based sources’ and ‘the Internet’ (all 93%). Main training needs for specialist CQAS staff include management and organisation of CQAS and technical skills in interpretation and presentation. Discussion/conclusion: CQAS staff require a formal training programme. Most CQAS staff considered that this should be a mandatory requirement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses research which was conducted from the viewpoint of a library manager in a medium sized medical library and was concerned with the ways that participation in a regional duplicate exchange scheme compared with other methods for fulfillment of missing issues in terms of costs and benefits. A discussion of duplicate exchange schemes that are seen in research, and of of the advantages and disadvantages that are associated with evidence-based library and information practice, is presented.

This feature examines the success of evidence-based practice (EBP) and the associated Cochrane Collaboration. It seeks to identify critical success factors associated with the way that both initiatives have been marketed. The simplicity of the original message used by each initiative allowed for subsequent assimilation of nuances and variants. Two implications for health librarians are highlighted; recognition that EBP is simply the embodiment of one world view and that many others may make a useful contribution and the need to craft a simple message capturing the unique selling points of the profession. To create a unique contribution health librarians require a detailed picture from market research of user information needs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]