Questions for tonight’s #ukmedlibs Twitter journal club

Tonight we’re going to try a journal club, and we’re discussing this paper:

Rethlefsen ML, Farrell AM, Osterhaus Trzasko LC, Brigham TJ. Librarian co-authors correlated with higher quality reported search strategies in general internal medicine systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2015 Jun;68(6):617-26. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.11.025. Epub 2015 Feb 7

We’ll start with introductions. Please tweet something to tell us who and where you are. The session will be lead by Tom Roper, who’ll tweet as @ukmedlibs, and give a summary of the paper for those who haven’t been able to get hold of full text, or who didn’t have time to read it. If you want to see a presentation Tom gave on this paper to the Brighton and Sussex NHS Library and Knowledge Service’s Journal Club last week, it’s on SlideShare.

Then we’ll tackle the following questions. Please tag your contributions with the number of the question you’re responding to, e.g. Q1 as well as, of course, with the #ukmedlibs hashtag.

Q1. How valid is the study’s methodology?

Q2. How reliable are the study’s conclusions?

Q3. How applicable are the results to our practice?

Q4. The study is about Systematic Review (SR) searches. How applicable to searches of other types is the conclusion? How much of our search workload comprises searches to support SRs?

Q5 How can we persuade authors and editors to change their policies?

Q6 How can we contribute to further research on methods for the assessment of published search strategies?

As ever, a transcript of the chat will be made available after the event.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s