We hope to start a Trust book club for anyone who is interested. We will read a different book each quarter, covering a range of titles on clinical and working life as chosen by the group. We are thinking of choosing non-fiction books rather than novels. Anyone is welcome and you don’t need to be a clinician or a manager to come along.
The journal club will be held on the second Friday of the month beginning Friday 8th September in the Library Seminar room from 1-1.45pm. We encourage you to bring your lunch!!
Although likely to be primarily of interest to nurses/HCA’s/ODPs/students/aspiring nurses etc, all staff are welcome. Topics will vary and participants are encouraged to suggest ideas for papers for future sessions. Details of papers will be publicised ahead of sessions on Twitter/Facebook/email etc and can be found at U:\Group\Evidence Updates for Healthcare Professionals (Green Folders)\Articles for journal club. If you cannot access this please contact the library for copies.
Recently, a search filter was published in the Health Information and Libraries Journal by Lynda Ayiku et al of NICE that attempts to locate any articles that are about UK research, populations or practice in Medline, and exclude others.
The search filter is validated, meaning it has been tested against a gold standard set of references to make sure it works. The full search filter was designed for the Ovid version of Medline, but unfortunately does not work properly in the HDAS interface used by the NHS. However, there is a simplified version available, which we have adapted for use in the HDAS interface, and this can be copied and pasted into the search box on HDAS, and then combined with your subject search (uisng ‘and’) to filter your search to UK articles only.
The KConnect output is virtually ready for Trip to use and it will allow us (with decent, but not perfect accuracy) the following elements from a RCT or systematic review:
P – population/disease
I – intervention
C – comparison (if there is one)
Sentiment – does the trial favour the intervention or not
Sample size – is this a large or small trial
Risk of Bias – via RobotReviewer
Several tools have been developed to evaluate the extent to which the findings from a network meta-analysis would be valid; however, applying these tools is a time-consuming task and often requires specific expertise. Clinicians have little time for critical appraisal, and they need to understand the key elements that help them select network meta-analyses that deserve further attention, optimising time and resources. This paper is aimed at providing a practical framework to assess the methodological robustness and reliability of results from network meta-analysis. To read the full article, log in using your NHS OpenAthens details.
The aim of this systematic review is twofold: (1) to characterise the purpose and description of available social anxiety apps and (2) to review the evidence on the effectiveness of social anxiety apps. To read the full article, log in using your NHS OpenAthens details.
If you want to access our major resources via mobile devices, then check the Mobile Essentials for NHS page on our website.
Here you’ll find links and details about a range of information sources suitable for mobile devices – both apps and mobile-friendly websites.
Book review. To read the full article, log in using your SSSFT NHS OpenAthens details. To read a copy of the book in this review, please contact the library
From 25 May 2018, all health organisations and arm's-length bodies will need to demonstrate compliance with new General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) requirements. GDPR will replace the Data Protection Directive (1995).
There are well over 150 000 health apps available in Europe1—from those designed to improve general wellness to apps that monitor medical conditions, apps for clinicians, and apps that function as medical devices. There have been more than 102 billion down-loads of health apps worldwide yet there is little regulation or guidance available for doctors or patients on quality, safety, or efficacy.
To read the full article, log in using your NHS OpenAthens details.
A faked peer review is a novel cause for retraction. We reviewed the characteristics of papers retracted due to a faked peer review. All papers retracted due to faked peer reviews were identified by searching the Retraction Watch website and by conducting a manual search. All identified papers were confirmed in published journals. To read the full article, log in using your NHS OpenAthens details.
Commentary. Academic fraud and research misconduct can manifest in many ways. In the olden days, we tend to think of research misconduct as falsifying or fabrication of data, or copying from other publications, including the author's own previous or simultaneous publications. In recent years, academic fraud has taken a more sophisticated turn.
In Postgraduate Medical Journal (PMJ), Qi et al reported on retractions related to faked peer reviews.1 To read the full article, log in using your NHS OpenAthens details.
The amount of available biomedical information is vast and growing. Natural limitations of the way clinicians and researchers approach this treasure trove of information comprise difficulties locating the information, and once located, cognitive biases may lead to inappropriate use of the information. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses represent important tools in the information age to improve knowledge and action. Systematic reviews represent a census approach to identifying literature to avoid non-response bias. They are a necessary prelude to producing combined quantitative summaries of associations or treatment effects. Meta-analysis comprises the arithmetical techniques for producing combined summaries from individual study reports. Careful, thoughtful and rigorous use of these tools is likely to enhance knowledge and action. Use of standard guidelines, such as the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, or embedding these activities within collaborative groups such as the Cochrane Collaboration, are likely to lead to more useful systematic review and meta-analysis reporting. To read the full article, log in using your NHS OpenAthens details.
T. Tunsch. EVA 2011 Berlin: 9.-11. November 2011 in den Staatlichen Museen zu Berlin am Kulturforum Potsdamer Platz; Elektronische Medien & Kunst, Kultur, Historie; die 18. Berliner Veranstaltung der Internationalen EVA-Serie Electronic Imaging & the Visual Arts; Konferenzband, page 23--42. Berlin, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Gesellschaft z. Förderung angewandter Informatik, EVA Conferences International, (2011)
P. O'Brien, D. Carral, J. Mixter, and P. Hitzler. Proceedings of the 6th Workshop on Ontology and Semantic Web Patterns (WOP 2015) co-located with the 14th International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC 2015), Bethlehem, Pensylvania, USA., volume 1461 of CEUR Workshop Proceedings, CEUR-WS.org, (October 2015)