CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 26Library Science and Information LiteracyHealth Sciences Research and EducationInformation Retrieval and Search Behavior

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 41 of the 41 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Effectiveness of bibliographic searches performed by paediatric residents and interns assisted by librarians. A randomised controlled trial: Library-assisted pediatricians’ searches. RCT

Open access
Gardois, Paolo, Calabrese, Roberto, Colombi, Nicoletta, Deplano, Annamaria, Lingua, Carla, Longo, Filomena, Villanacci, Maria C., Miniero, Roberto, Piga, Antonio·2011·Health Information & Libraries Journal
DOI 10.1111/j.1471-1842.2011.00957.x
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Considerable barriers still prevent paediatricians from successfully using information retrieval technology. OBJECTIVES: To verify whether the assistance of biomedical librarians significantly improves the outcomes of searches performed by paediatricians in biomedical databases using real-life clinical scenarios. METHODS: In a controlled trial at a paediatric teaching hospital, nine residents and interns were randomly allocated to an assisted search group and nine to a non-assisted (control) group. Each participant searched PubMed and other online sources, performing pre-determined tasks including the formulation of a clinical question, retrieval and selection of bibliographic records. In the assisted group, participants were supported by a librarian with ≥5 years of experience. The primary outcome was the success of search sessions, scored against a specific assessment tool. RESULTS: The median score of the assisted group was 73.6 points interquartile range (IQR = 13.4) vs. 50.4 (IQR = 17.1) of the control group. The difference between median values in the results was 23.2 points (95% CI 4.8-33.2), in favour of the assisted group (P-value, Mann-Whitney U test: 0.013). CONCLUSIONS: The study has found quantitative evidence of a significant difference in search performance between paediatric residents or interns assisted by a librarian and those searching the literature alone.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1471-1842.2011.00957.x

Cites

41 of 41 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Librarian-mediated searches combining MeSH terms and free text terms in traditional databases achieve better results than non-librarian searches.

    “Librarian-mediated searches (combining MeSH terms and free text terms in traditional databases) achieve better results than non-librarian searches [3, 4].”

    From Comparing the coverage, recall, and precision of searches for 120 systematic reviews in Embase, MEDLINE, and Google Scholar: a prospective study (2016) · cites this paper as [3]

    The Principal results (p. 9) and Conclusions (p. 11) report significantly better search outcomes for paediatric residents and interns assisted by librarians than for those searching alone. The study assessed MeSH use and search terms (assessment tables, pp. 15, 17), but our copy does not establish that combining MeSH and free-text terms was the search method responsible for the improvement. The finding is also specific to these clinicians’ search sessions, rather than librarian-mediated searches generally. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Gardois, 2005, Assessing the efficacy of EBM teaching in a clinical setting, Hypothesis, 19, 1

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Metadata

Authors
Gardois, P., Calabrese, R., Colombi, N., Deplano, A., Lingua, C., Longo, F., Villanacci, M. C., Miniero, R., & Piga, A.
Affiliations
  • University of Sheffield (GB)
  • University of Turin (IT)
  • Magna Graecia University (IT)
Corresponding author
Gardois, Paolo
ORCID
Venue
Health Information & Libraries Journal
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2011-08-16
Volume
28
Issue
4
Pages
273-284
ISSN
1471-1834 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1111/j.1471-1842.2011.00957.x
OpenAlex
W1580431735
Cited by
26
References
41
Citations by year
2021: 3 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 1
FWCI
22.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
doi.wiley.com/10.1002/tdm_license_1.1 (tdm, 1477 d)
Locations
  • Health Information & Libraries Journal (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • White Rose Research Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York) (acceptedVersion)
  • Institutional Research Information System University of Turin (University of Turin) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Library Science and Information Literacy
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Sciences Research and Education
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information Retrieval and Search Behavior
Keywords
bibliographic database searching, pediatric residents, medical interns, information retrieval, PubMed, clinical question formulation, biomedical databases, medical education
MeSH terms
Adult, Clinical Competence, Female, Health Services Research, Hospitals, Teaching, Humans, Internship and Residency, Libraries, Medical, Library Science, Male, Pediatrics, Databases, Bibliographic, Information Storage and Retrieval, Statistics, Nonparametric, Decision Support Systems, Clinical, Evidence-Based Practice

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review