[This corrects the article DOI: 10.5195/jmla.2022.1327.].

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.5195/jmla.2022.1272.].

OBJECTIVE: Systematic reviews and other evidence syntheses, the pinnacle of the evidence pyramid, embody comprehensiveness and rigor; however, retracted data are being incorporated into these publications. This study examines the use of retracted publications in the field of pharmacy, describes characteristics of retracted publications cited by systematic reviews, and discusses factors associated with citation likelihood. METHODS: Using data from Retraction Watch, we identified retracted publications in the pharmacy field. We identified all articles citing these retracted publications in Web of Science and Scopus and limited results to systematic reviews. We classified the retraction reason, determined whether the citation occurred before or after retraction, and analyzed factors associated with the likelihood of systematic reviews citing a retracted publication. RESULTS: Of 1,396 retracted publications, 283 were cited 1,096 times in systematic reviews. Most (65.0%) (712/1096) citations occurred before retraction. Citations were most often to items retracted due to data falsification or manipulation (39.2%), followed by items retracted due to ethical misconduct including plagiarism (30.4%), or concerns about or errors in data or methods (26.2%). Compared to those not cited in systematic reviews, cited items were significantly more likely to be retracted due to data falsification and manipulation, were published in high impact factor journals, and had longer delays between publication and retraction. CONCLUSIONS: Further analysis of systematic reviews citing retracted publications is needed to determine the impact of flawed data. Librarians understand the nuances involved and can advocate for greater transparency around the retraction process and increase awareness of challenges posed by retractions.

The Journal of the Medical Library Association (JMLA) selects new editorial board members every year. In the spring of 2021, JMLA used a new process for reviewing and selecting applicants for the limited number of open editorial board positions. This reevaluation of the selection process was spurred by a desire to create a more diverse and representative board. Changes to the procedures for selecting new editorial board members included having an open call for editorial board members, creating an application form, creating a selection committee to screen applicants, creating a form for the selection committee to extract data from applications, and creating a two-step process for screening and then selecting board members. As part of construction of this new process, areas for continued improvement were also identified, such as refining the application form to allow more specific answers to areas of interest to the selection committee. The newly created selection process for editorial board members constitutes a significant change in JMLA processes; however, more can be done to build on this work by further refining the selection process and ensuring that new members are selected in a transparent and streamlined manner.

OBJECTIVE: This study examines the extent to which retracted articles pertaining to COVID-19 have been shared via social and mass media based on altmetric scores. METHODS: Seventy-one retracted articles related to COVID-19 were identified from relevant databases, of which thirty-nine had an Altmetric Attention Score obtained using the Altmetrics Bookmarklet. Data extracted from the articles include overall attention score and demographics of sharers (e.g., geographic location, professional affiliation). RESULTS: Retracted articles related to COVID-19 were shared tens of thousands of times to an audience of potentially hundreds of millions of readers and followers. Twitter was the largest medium for sharing these articles, and the United States was the country with the most sharers. While general members of the public were the largest proportion of sharers, researchers and professionals were not immune to sharing these articles on social media and on websites, blogs, or news media. CONCLUSIONS: These findings have potential implications for better understanding the spread of misleading or false information perpetuated in retracted scholarly publications. They emphasize the importance of quality peer review and research ethics among journals and responsibility among individuals who wish to share research findings.

Building resilient libraries will take energy and courage. It will take a willingness to step outside our traditional roles and engage in the messy, tough work of redefining ourselves and our institutions [1].

This article focuses on PubMed's Best Match sorting algorithm, presenting a simplified explanation of how it operates and highlighting how artificial intelligence affects search results in ways that are not seen by users. We further discuss user search behaviors and the ethical implications of algorithms, specifically for health care practitioners. PubMed recently began using artificial intelligence to improve the sorting of search results using a Best Match option. In 2020, PubMed deployed this algorithm as the default search method, necessitating serious discussion around the ethics of this and similar algorithms, as users do not always know when an algorithm uses artificial intelligence, what artificial intelligence is, and how it may impact their everyday tasks. These implications resonate strongly in health care, in which the speed and relevancy of search results is crucial but does not negate the importance of a lack of bias in how those search results are selected or presented to the user. As a health care provider will not often venture past the first few results in search of a clinical decision, will Best Match help them find the answers they need more quickly? Or will the algorithm bias their results, leading to the potential suppression of more recent or relevant results?

OBJECTIVES: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SRs/MAs) are designed to be rigorous research methodologies that synthesize information and inform practice. An increase in their publication runs parallel to quality concerns and a movement toward standards to improve reporting and methodology. With the goal of informing the guidance librarians provide to SR/MA teams, this study assesses online journal author guidelines from an institutional sample to determine whether these author guidelines address SR/MA methodological quality. METHODS: A Web of Science Core Collection (Clarivate) search identified SRs/MAs published in 2014-2019 by authors affiliated with a single institution. The AMSTAR 2 checklist was used to develop an assessment tool of closed questions specific to measures for SR/MA methodological quality in author guidelines, with questions added about author guidelines in general. Multiple reviewers completed the assessment. RESULTS: The author guidelines of 141 journals were evaluated. Less than 20% addressed at least one of the assessed measures specific to SR/MA methodological quality. There was wide variation in author guidelines between journals from the same publisher apart from the American Medical Association, which consistently offered in-depth author guidelines. Normalized Eigenfactor and Article Influence Scores did not indicate author guideline breadth. CONCLUSIONS: Most author guidelines in the institutional sample did not address SR/MA methodological quality. When consulting with teams embarking on SRs/MAs, librarians should not expect author guidelines to provide details about the requirements of the target journals. Librarians should advise teams to follow established SR/MA standards, contact journal staff, and review SRs/MAs previously published in the journal.

Erratum in J Med Libr Assoc. 2022 Jan 1;110(1):E31.

The informed netizen of today is in a state of information overload. With 785 million broadband subscribers and an urban and rural teledensity of 138% and 60%, respectively [1], India is already the second-largest online digital market. Today, in theory, medical journals and textbooks can be accessed by anyone, anytime, anywhere, and at affordable rates. Fifty odd years ago, when the authors entered medical school, the use of computers in medical education was unknown in India, as in other parts of the world. It was in this milieu, thirty-seven years ago, that eleven young Madras (Chennai)-based doctors decided to make medical literature easily accessible, particularly to clinicians in suburban and rural India. The aim was to make relevant, affordable reprints easily available to the practitioner at their place of work or study. Photocopying and using the postal service was the chosen, and indeed the only available, mode of operation. This article will outline the methodology used, trials and tribulations faced, and persistence displayed. At that time, the processes deployed appeared relevant and truly innovative. Over the ensuing years, developments in information technology made the services redundant. Extensive, even revolutionary, changes such as universal digitization and availability of a cost-effective Internet radically changed how medical literature could be accessed in India.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the differences in presentation (formatting) of adverse drug reaction (ADR) information within drug monographs in commonly used drug information (DI) mobile device applications. METHODS: A cross-sectional analysis of ADR formatting of twenty commonly prescribed oral medications within seven DI mobile applications was performed. Databases were assessed for ADR information, including presence of placebo comparisons, severity of ADR, onset of ADR, formatting of ADRs in percentile (quantitative) format or qualitative format, whether references were used to cite information, and whether ADRs are grouped by organ system. Data was collected by two study investigators and discrepancies were resolved via consensus. RESULTS: The seven DI mobile applications varied significantly on every analyzed ADR variable with the exception of ADR onset, which was absent in all databases. Significant differences were found for variables known to impact clinical judgment such as placebo comparisons and qualitative versus quantitative formatting. Placebo comparisons were most common among monographs in Lexicomp (30%) but were absent among monographs within other applications. Quantitative information was commonly used in most databases but was absent in Epocrates. Qualitative formatting was present in all Epocrates and Micromedex applications but absent in the majority of other applications. Substantial variations were also found in severity and grouping information. CONCLUSION: Substantial variation in ADR formatting exists among the most common DI mobile applications. These differences may translate into alternative interpretations of medical information and thus impact clinical judgment. Health care librarians and clinicians should consider ADR formatting when choosing between DI applications.

OBJECTIVE: This study compared the recall and precision of MeSH-term versus text-word searching to better understand psychosocial MeSH terms and to provide guidance on whether to include both strategies in an information literacy session or how much time should be spent on teaching each search strategy. METHODS: Using the relevant recall method, a total of 3,162 resources were considered and evaluated to form a gold standard set of 1,521 relevant resources. We compared resources discussing psychosocial aspects of children and adolescents living with type 1 diabetes using two search strategies: text-word strategy versus MeSH-term strategy. The frequency of MeSH terms, the MeSH hierarchy, and elements of each search strategy were also examined. RESULTS: Using the 1,521 relevant articles, we found that the text-word search strategy had 54% recall, while the MeSH-term strategy had 75% recall. Also, the precision of the text-word strategy was 34.4%, while the precision of the MeSH-term strategy was 47.7%. Therefore, the MeSH-term search strategy yielded both greater recall and greater precision. The MeSH strategy was also more complicated in design and usage than the text-word strategy. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the effectiveness of text-word and MeSH search strategies on precision and recall. The combination of text-word and MeSH strategies is recommended to achieve the most comprehensive results. These results support the idea that MeSH or a similar controlled vocabulary should be taught to experienced and knowledgeable students and practitioners who require a myriad of resources for their literature searches.

OBJECTIVE: This preliminary study examined how personal librarian programs are implemented within medical and academic health sciences libraries. Increasing awareness of these programs and how they are implemented could create a larger and more accessible knowledge base for establishing best practices that similar libraries can look to when creating their own programs. METHODS: To characterize existing programs, a twenty-two-item survey was sent to MEDLIB-L, AAHSL-ALL, ARCL-HSIG, and PSS-Lists email listservs in October 2018 to reach a broad audience of medical and academic health sciences librarians. Survey responses were analyzed using Qualtrics and Excel. RESULTS: Of the 2,882 potential email recipients, 49 survey sessions were recorded, and a total of 38 survey sessions were completed (1.3% response rate). Of the 38 completed responses, representatives of 12 libraries (31.5%) reported that a personal librarian program had been implemented at their institution. For implementation, eight libraries involved 1-5 librarians, and four involved 6-10. Librarians were assigned 50-100 (n=6), 101-150 (n=1), or 151 or more (n=1) students each. The identified programs served medical students (n=11), nursing students (n=7), health professions students (n=7), dental students (n=2), and students in other fields (n=4). Services provided and communication methods were also identified. CONCLUSIONS: The personal librarian programs identified by the survey were uniquely structured to best meet the needs of their users, though similarities in implementation existed across institutions. Medical and academic health sciences libraries can look to these libraries as practical examples when starting their own personal library programs.

Health disparities within Asian and Pacific Islander (API) communities are often masked due to aggregated data. Lack of adequate data limits required health care services for these communities. While moving forward toward health equity, it is critical that disparities for API communities are acknowledged and addressed. This article focuses on the issues of aggregated data for API communities followed by suggestions on how health sciences librarians can support and promote better practices for data disaggregation.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to gain a better understanding of the scope and adaptive nature of reference services provided by academic health sciences librarians over a one-year period (between March 2020 and March 2021) during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: In March 2021, academic health sciences librarians in the United States were invited to participate in an anonymous online survey about their experiences providing reference services during the COVID-19 pandemic. The online survey was developed, pretested, and distributed to various listservs. RESULTS: A total of 205 academic health sciences librarians and other information professionals with health sciences liaison responsibilities in the US (N=205) responded to the online survey. The scope of reference services provided during the COVID-19 pandemic included email-based reference services (97%), virtual reference (89%), telephone (80%), text-based (33%), and in-person (31%). The most common types of COVID-related reference questions included COVID-19 treatments (53%), safety precautions (46%), vaccines (41%), and prevalence (38%). Additionally, the identification of challenging reference questions and examples of misinformation were provided by respondents. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the survey characterize the evolving nature and scope of academic health sciences reference work during the COVID-19 pandemic. Librarians reported an increase in reference questions during the pandemic and are answering them in creative ways despite barriers (e.g., limited time and reduction in resources). There is an opportunity for librarians to continue to address COVID-related misinformation. Overall, these findings provide useful insight for library practitioners and administrators planning reference services during public health crises.

OBJECTIVE: In 2019, the Medical Library Association (MLA) adopted a new model of community governance and participation, referred to as the MLA Communities Transition. The Communities Transition was the culmination of long-ranging plans by MLA to support two of its strategic goals: diversity and inclusion, and communities. The reorganization aimed to strengthen MLA member communities, better support programming, reduce administrative overhead, and attract new members. The 2019-2020 MLA Rising Stars cohort was tasked to study the Communities Transition and identify lessons that might be applicable to any major future change proposed for the organization. METHODS: A qualitative study was designed and conducted to investigate MLA member and leader perceptions of the change process, using John Kotter's eight steps for organizational change model as a framework. A set of fifteen open-ended questions was developed based on Kotter's model, and seventeen semistructured interviews were conducted to gather perceptions and feedback. Interview transcripts were analyzed using a grounded theory approach to explore and identify several themes across all discussions. RESULTS: Four major themes were identified: communication between leadership and membership, leadership during the change process, membership investment in change, and instituting change and future recommendations. The study revealed strengths in the overall implementation and execution of the transition, but it also highlighted several perceived issues with communication and information sharing. CONCLUSIONS: Study findings were used to develop recommendations for improved communication strategies and for handling large-scale changes within the organization in the future.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has sparked a wave of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research that organizations around the world have been synthesizing in evidence reviews to provide high-quality evidence to support policymakers and clinicians. The urgency of these efforts opens these organizations to the risk of duplicated efforts, which could waste valuable time and resources. CASE PRESENTATION: The VA Evidence Synthesis Program (VA ESP) formed a COVID Response Team that launched an online catalog of COVID-19 evidence reviews in March 2020 (https://www.covid19reviews.org/). The goal of this website is to capture the work of evidence synthesis groups in the US and around the world to maximize their collective contributions to patients, frontline clinicians, researchers, and policymakers during the COVID-19 pandemic and avoid duplicating efforts. CONCLUSIONS: This ongoing and evolving project provides a helpful catalog of evidence reviews at various stages of production; in addition, the website provides further value with informational icons, review collections, and links to similar resources. The VA ESP will maintain this website to continue to support the needs of policymakers, clinicians, and researchers both within the VA and around the world throughout the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: An article's citations are useful for finding related articles that may not be readily found by keyword searches or textual similarity. Citation analysis is also important for analyzing scientific innovation and the structure of the biomedical literature. We wanted to facilitate citation analysis for the broad community by providing a user-friendly interface for accessing and analyzing citation data for biomedical articles. CASE PRESENTATION: We seeded the Citation Cloud dataset with over 465 million open access citations culled from six different sources: PubMed Central, Microsoft Academic Graph, ArnetMiner, Semantic Scholar, Open Citations, and the NIH iCite dataset. We implemented a free, public extension to PubMed that allows any user to visualize and analyze the entire citation cloud around any paper of interest A: the set of articles cited by A, those which cite A, those which are co-cited with A, and those which are bibliographically coupled to A. CONCLUSIONS: Citation Cloud greatly enables the study of citations by the scientific community, including relatively advanced analyses (co-citations and bibliographic coupling) that cannot be undertaken using other available tools. The tool can be accessed by running any PubMed query on the Anne O'Tate value-added search interface and clicking on the Citations button next to any retrieved article.

Twenty fifteen marked the year of assessment for the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). The MDGs that achieved the greatest success were those where evidence-based practice (EBP) interventions were implemented. The ability to practice evidence-based medicine is grounded in the creation of and access to medical literature that synthesizes research findings. The role that global health literature played in the success of the MDGs demonstrates that medical libraries and librarians have a role to play in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Librarians can hold capacity-building workshops that provide instruction on how to access evidence-based literature and also train health professionals to conduct synthesis research. Research findings conducted by in-country health professionals are more likely to address issues being faced by local communities and will afford the possibility of obtaining the necessary evidence-based answers that can then be used to implement policies to resolve public health issues identified in the SDGs. This paper discusses how an international team of librarians leveraged funding from a Medical Library Association/Librarians without Borders/Elsevier Foundation/Research4Life grant to hold a capacity-building workshop in Zimbabwe and follow-up online trainings. The workshop focused on accessing evidence-based resources and conducting synthesis research. Outcomes included the creation and policy implementation of evidence-based knowledge products in alignment with local needs and galvanizing a multisectoral group of key individuals who have gone on to collaborate toward the vision of creating a Zimbabwe innovation hub. Looking ahead, such grants can be leveraged to conduct capacity-building to support knowledge translation and other local training needs.

OBJECTIVE: This study investigated the contributions of library and information science (LIS) professionals to systematic reviews and meta-analyses with authors from Sub-Saharan Africa. It also investigated how the first author's address and type of collaboration affected the involvement of LIS professionals in systematic reviews and meta-analyses. METHODS: Bibliographic data of systematic reviews with author(s) from the forty-six Sub-Saharan African countries was retrieved from MEDLINE. Content and bibliometric analyses were performed on the systematic reviews' full-texts and bibliographic data, respectively, to identify the contributions of LIS professionals and collaboration patterns. RESULTS: Beyond traditional roles as search strategy developers and searchers, the LIS professionals participated in article retrieval, database selection, reference management, draft review, review conceptualization, manuscript writing, technical support, article screening and selection, data extraction, abstract review, and training/teaching. Of the 2,539 publications, LIS professionals were mentioned in 472 publications. LIS professionals from only seven of the forty-six Sub-Saharan African countries were noted to have contributed. LIS professionals from South Africa were mentioned most frequently-five times more than those from other Sub-Saharan African countries. LIS professionals from Sub-Saharan Africa mostly contributed to publications with first authors from Sub-Saharan Africa (90.20%) and intra-Sub-Saharan African collaboration (61.66%). Most LIS professionals (97.91%) that contributed to international collaboration publications were from outside Sub-Saharan Africa. CONCLUSION: The contribution of LIS professionals in Sub-Saharan Africa to evidence-based biomedical research can improve through training, mentoring, and collaboration between LIS associations in Sub-Saharan Africa and those in countries with resources and a history of research collaboration with the region.

BACKGROUND: Pharmacy students are primarily taught literature searching skills didactically during their Doctor of Pharmacy curriculum. To effect change in the area of advanced literature searching skills, a pharmacy librarian joined with two Advanced Pharmacy Practice Experience (APPE) preceptors to design and implement a crash course on applied systematic searching skills for a cohort of four students. CASE PRESENTATION: Through the cognitive apprenticeship model, a Systematic Searching Crash Course (SSCC) was implemented among a cohort of four academic APPE students. Students developed search strategies using controlled vocabulary and free text, translated their searches into multiple databases, and used citation management software to build libraries of evidence. Additionally, the cohort blindly peer reviewed each other's search strategies, wrote literature reviews, and finally conducted a search together without input from the pharmacy librarian. CONCLUSIONS: Review of the pre-/post-course self-assessment taken by the cohort indicates the SSCC is a success in terms of improving student confidence in accessing and synthesizing primary literature. As the crash course is further refined and implemented, there may be more opportunity to embed the course into didactic curriculum and residency programs and to potentially reproduce it for other health science disciplines.

OBJECTIVE: The National Library of Medicine (NLM) inaugurated a "publication type" concept to facilitate searches for systematic reviews (SRs). On the other hand, clinical queries (CQs) are validated search strategies designed to retrieve scientifically sound, clinically relevant original and review articles from biomedical literature databases. We compared the retrieval performance of the SR publication type (SR[pt]) against the most sensitive CQ for systematic review articles (CQrs) in PubMed. METHODS: We ran date-limited searches of SR[pt] and CQrs to compare the relative yield of articles and SRs, focusing on the differences in retrieval of SRs by SR[pt] but not CQrs (SR[pt] NOT CQrs) and CQrs NOT SR[pt]. Random samples of articles retrieved in each of these comparisons were examined for SRs until a consistent pattern became evident. RESULTS: For SR[pt] NOT CQrs, the yield was relatively low in quantity but rich in quality, with 79% of the articles being SRs. For CQrs NOT SR[pt], the yield was high in quantity but low in quality, with only 8% being SRs. For CQrs AND SR[pt], the quality was highest, with 92% being SRs. CONCLUSIONS: We found that SR[pt] had high precision and specificity for SRs but low recall (sensitivity), whereas CQrs had much higher recall. SR[pt] OR CQrs added valid SRs to the CQrs yield at low cost (i.e., added few non-SRs). For searches that are intended to be exhaustive for SRs, SR[pt] can be added to existing sensitive search filters.