The DSM-5 is now available online through the American Psychiatry Association’s Psychiatry Online platform. It is available at http://purl.lib.uiowa.edu/dsm. The link can also be found by searching DSM-5 in Smart Search or InfoHawk.
Systematic reviews and meta-analyses have long been considered one of the highest levels of evidence, and lately, publication frequency in health science journals is on the rise. However, there are still a lot of people who are unaware of what goes into writing a systematic review or a meta-analysis. This post will discuss what a systematic review entails, how it differs from a meta-analysis, and the value that librarians bring to both types of studies.
A systematic review is a research study that seeks to find all the high quality studies done on a given topic so that they can be summarized into one article. If the studies are homogenous or similar enough to one another, the data can be extracted and combined using statistical formulas. This statistical compilation of data is a meta-analysis. Not all systematic reviews contain a meta-analysis, but all citations to be included in a meta-analysis should be located through a systematic search, to reduce the risk of bias.
An important part of preparing a systematic review is to ensure that the method used is explicit and transparent, allowing for another team to replicate the process. The first step involves putting together a team of at least two researchers who will independently review the studies located. These researchers then develop a research question and write up a protocol that explicitly detailing how the systematic review will be carried out. One of the details is the criteria against which studies will be assessed for inclusion in the review. It is highly recommended that researchers register their protocols before they begin the formal search for studies. Once the protocol is in place, the search for and review of high quality studies can begin. Systematic reviews can take anywhere from one year to eighteen months to complete due to the rigorous nature of the review process. Librarians are highly skilled and trained to develop what are often complicated and lengthy search strategies in order to locate as many relevant studies as possible. They are also familiar with standards and basic steps for completing a systematic review. In the report, Finding What Works in Health Care: Standards for Systematic Reviews, the Institute of Medicine recommends working with a librarian or other information specialist to plan out the search strategy and to peer review the final strategy used to locate studies. Three of the librarians are Hardin Library have attended the Systematic Review Workshop: The Nuts and Bolts for Librarians which takes place over the course of two and a half days.
If you would like to learn more about conducting and locating systematic reviews, please see the Systematic Review LibGuide. You are also welcome to contact us if you have any questions.
A print copy of the DSM-5 is now available in the Hardin Permanent Reserve collection, under call number RC 455.2 .C4 D54 2013. It may be checked out for two hours at a time.
We have had several questions about whether we will be adding the electronic version of the DSM-5. The quick answer is yes, we will! The longer answer is that we have to wait for it to actually be available. We get the electronic version of the DSM through the American Psychiatric Association’s Psychiatry Online platform. They have informed us that the DSM-5 will be added sometime this summer.
If you have questions about how we acquire new resources, please contact Janna Lawrence at janna-lawrence@uiowa.edu or 319-335-9870.
Traditional scholarly metrics like Journal Impact Factors do not take into account scholars’ impact in today’s social media world. This is where altmetrics come in (visit altmetrics: a manifesto for more information). There are a growing number of altmetrics applications out there. One example is the Altmetric for Scopus.
Scopus is a multidisciplinary database with substantial international coverage. When you view an abstract in Scopus, you might see a box titled Altmetric for Scopus on the right side of the screen. Below is a screenshot taken from the abstract view of the article: Slinin, Y., Paudel, M., Taylor, B. C., Ishani, A., Rossom, R., Yaffe, K., . . . Ensrud, K. E. (2012). Association between serum 25(OH) vitamin D and the risk of cognitive decline in older women. Journals of Gerontology – Series A Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences, 67 A(10), 1092-1098.
It should be noted that Scopus is not compatible with Internet Explorer (IE) 9 (like ProQuest Dissertations and Theses). IE 9 users should also make sure compatibility view mode is turned on: go to Tools and then click on Compatibility View settings and check Display all websites in Compatibility View.
Altmetric for Scopus is a 3rd party web application that collects mentions on social media and news outlets and counts on popular reference managers for a particular paper. The number inside the colored circle is the Altmetric score for the article you’re viewing. If you don’t see the Altmetric for Scopus, it means this app can’t find any mentions of the article you are viewing in their data sources. Also keep in mind that Altmetric only started collecting content from supported publishers/repositories during the second half of 2011. Read more on the app’s potential limits on its developer’s website.
Come to Hardin Library on Tuesday, Feb 19th, 1:00-2:00 pm and learn more about Scopus. Register for the class at http://www.lib.uiowa.edu/hardin/workshop/ Don’t forget that we offer a class called “Get Started Publishing”. If you don’t see it listed, you can always contact us for a one on one or group consultation.
The Scopus Alert for iPhone app allows you to 1) do keyword search, 2) email, bookmark, and tweet an article, and 3) receive email alerts when articles get cited. Keep in mind that you can only view abstracts, and full-text links are NOT available. A workaround is to email an article to oneself and access the fulltext outside of the app.
Before you download and install SciVerse Scopus Alerts (institutional subscriber’s version) from the App Store on your iPhone, you need to create a Scopus account at http://purl.lib.uiowa.edu/scopus. You will be prompted to enter your Scopus log in and password and your UIowa email when you first open this app. Detailed instruction can be found at SciVerse Scopus iPhone app User Guide (PDF file).
Scopus is a multidisciplinary database with substantial international coverage. All citations that are in EMBASE are also in Scopus. Scopus also allows you to measure an author’s scholarly impact and to track an article’s cited and citing references.
Come to Hardin Library on Tuesday, Feb 19th, 1:00-2:00 pm and learn more about Scopus. Register for the class at http://www.lib.uiowa.edu/hardin/workshop/.
It has come to our attention that some people are unable to access their NCBI accounts from off-campus. Occasionally, access from on-campus is also not working. With this problem, attempts to log into NCBI accounts result in the page failing to load completely. Sometimes, there is a notice at the bottom of the screen that you can click to allow the page to completely load, but that isn’t always the case.
It turns out there is a problem with the way that the library’s proxy server is interacting with the NCBI login page. (The proxy server is what makes the links to full-text work.) The issue is being addressed, but in the meantime, if you want to use your NCBI account through the Hardin Library website, please use the following link: PubMed NCBI. You should use this link instead of the link at the top right of the PubMed website.
Once you are logged into NCBI, you can access PubMed by using the link at the bottom of the page as shown in this image.
If you continue to have problems accessing your NCBI account or have any other questions, please contact Hardin Library.
If you are a RefWorks user, you may notice that when you log into your RefWorks account and select tools, you will see that a new version of WNC 4 was released Jan 4, 2013. There are new features and bug fixes in this version. However, this newest version does not work with Microsoft Office 2013.
Office 2013 users should continue using earlier version of WNC 4 if you already have it installed. You could also use WNC 3 or One Line/Cite View to format in-text citations and bibliographies.
We have asked RefWorks for an estimated time of release of updated WNC version compatible with Office 2013, and they are unable to project. They have confirmed that WNC 3 will continue to be supported/updated for some time.
Also, we have updated the webpage that appears when the RefWorks link from the Hardin Library home page is selected. The information previously on this page has all been moved to a new display format, with a news/updates box at top of page. Note other important link relocation in below screenshot.
Please continue to contact the reference desk or your librarian liaison if you have questions or problems with RefWorks or WNC. We will direct you to RefWorks technical support when necessary.
U.S. Pharmacopeial Convention (USP) recently added a new page on its website dedicated to compounding information including USP standards. USP General Chapter <797> Pharmaceutical Compounding – Sterile Preparations can be downloaded free of charge, at least for now.
Contact us if you have questions. Don’t forget Hardin Library’s subject guide on Clinical Pharmacy Resources also has a subpage for compounding resources.
If you have not noticed it yet, type a drug name into Google search box and you will see a quick information box on the right side of your results page. Google announced this new feature on Dec 11, 2001 on Google +.
At the bottom of the box, sources are acknowledged and a link for reporting errors provided. A prominently placed disclaimer states “Consult a doctor if you have a medical concern.”
Research has become increasingly data-intensive. Many funding agencies, such as National Institute of Health (NIH) and National Science Foundation (NSF) have started to implement policies and guidelines regarding data management and sharing. In such context, metadata is a term that is often used but not always explained or defined.
A recent blog post by Bonnie Swoger, a librarian at SUNY Geneseo, does an excellent job in explaining metadata using examples many , if not all, can related to. Swoger blogs at Information Culture, a Scientific American blog.
Read on and happy holidays! What is metadata? A Christmas themed exploration.
Christmas Tree Made Out Of Hardin Books/Journals
