PubMed's core clinical journals filter: redesigned for contemporary clinical impact and utility.

Objective: The Core Clinical Journals (CCJ) list, produced by the U.S. National Library of Medicine (NLM), has been used by clinicians and librarians for half a century for two main purposes: narrowing a literature search to clinically useful journals and identifying high priority titles for library collections. After documentation of low usage of the existing CCJ, a review was undertaken to assess current validity, followed by an update to current clinical needs. Methods: As the subject coverage of the 50-year-old list had never been evaluated, the CCJ committee began its innovative step-wise approach by analyzing the existing subject scope. To determine whether clinical subjects had changed over the last half-century, the committee collected data on journal usage in hospitals and medical facilities, adding journal usage from Morning Report blogs recording the journal article citations used by physicians and residents in response to clinical questions. Patient-driven high-frequency diagnoses and subjects added contextual data by depicting the clinical environment. Results: The analysis identified a total of 80 subjects and selected 241 journals for the updated Clinical Journals filter, based on actual clinical utility of each journal. Discussion: These data-driven methods created a different framework for evaluating the structure and content of this filter. It is the real-world evidence needed to highlight CCJ clinical impact and push clinically useful journals to first page results. Since the new process resulted in a new product, the name warrants a change from Core Clinical Journals (CCJ) to Clinically Useful Journals (CUJ). Therefore, the redesigned NLM Core Clinical Journals/AIM set from this point forward will be referred to as Clinically Useful Journals (CUJ). The evidence-based process used to reframe evaluation of the clinical impact and utility of biomedical journals is documented in this article.

Brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) epigenomic modifications and brain-related phenotypes in humans: A systematic review.

Epigenomic modifications of the brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) gene have been postulated to underlie the pathogenesis of neurodevelopmental, psychiatric, and neurological conditions. This systematic review summarizes current evidence investigating the association of BDNF epigenomic modifications (DNA methylation, non-coding RNA, histone modifications) with brain-related phenotypes in humans. A novel contribution is our creation of an open access web-based application, the BDNF DNA Methylation Map, to interactively visualize specific positions of CpG sites investigated across all studies for which relevant data were available. Our literature search of four databases through September 27, 2021 returned 1701 articles, of which 153 met inclusion criteria. Our review revealed exceptional heterogeneity in methodological approaches, hindering the identification of clear patterns of robust and/or replicated results. We summarize key findings and provide recommendations for future epigenomic research. The existing literature appears to remain in its infancy and requires additional rigorous research to fulfill its potential to explain BDNF-linked risk for brain-related conditions and improve our understanding of the molecular mechanisms underlying their pathogenesis.

Continuing education for systematic reviews: a prospective longitudinal assessment of a workshop for librarians.

OBJECTIVE: This prospective, longitudinal study explored the impact of a continuing education class on librarians' knowledge levels about and professional involvement with systematic reviews. Barriers to systematic review participation and the presence of formal systematic review services in libraries were also measured. METHODS: Participants completed web-based surveys at three points in time: pre-class, post-class, and six-months' follow-up. Descriptive statistics were calculated for demographics and survey questions. Linear mixed effects models assessed knowledge score changes over time. RESULTS: Of 160 class attendees, 140 (88%) completed the pre-class survey. Of those 140, 123 (88%) completed the post-class survey, and 103 (74%) completed the follow-up survey. There was a significant increase (p<0.00001) from pre-class to post-class in knowledge test scores, and this increase was maintained at follow-up. At post-class, 69% or more of participants intended to promote peer review of searches, seek peer review of their searches, search for grey literature, read or follow published guidelines on conduct and documentation of systematic reviews, and ask for authorship on a systematic review. Among librarians who completed a systematic review between post-class and follow-up, 73% consulted published guidelines, 52% searched grey literature, 48% sought peer review, 57% asked for authorship, and 70% received authorship. CONCLUSIONS: Attendance at this continuing education class was associated with positive changes in knowledge about systematic reviews and in librarians' systematic review-related professional practices. This suggests that in-depth professional development classes can help librarians develop skills that are needed to meet library patrons' changing service needs.

The role of apheresis in hypertriglyceridemia-induced acute pancreatitis: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Mostly published as case reports or series, the role of apheresis in hypertriglyceridemia (HTG)-related acute pancreatitis (AP) remains unclear. We performed a systematic review of available literature on this topic with specific focus on disease severity. METHODS: A search of electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane) and gray literature yielded 5020 articles of which 74 met criteria for inclusion (301 unique patients). Relevant data were abstracted from full manuscripts and analyzed. RESULTS: Most patients were young (mean age 37.9 ± 10.4 years) and male (71.5%). About two-thirds (69.7%) received apheresis within 48 h and most required only 1 or 2 sessions (84.4%). Apheresis resulted in an average reduction of serum TG by 85.4% (p < 0.001). There was high variability in reporting the presence of and criteria to define severe AP (reported 221/301, 73.4%; present 85/221, 38.5%) or organ failure (reported 104/301, 34.6%; present 52/104, 50.0%). Improvement was reported in the majority of patients (reported 144/301, 47.8%, present 136/144, 94.4%) mainly by clinical symptoms or laboratory tests. Overall mortality was 7.1% (21/294) which increased to 11.8% (10/85) with severe AP and 19.2% (10/52) with organ failure. CONCLUSIONS: Apheresis effectively reduces serum TG levels. However, due to uncontrolled data, reporting bias and lack of a comparison group, definitive conclusions on the efficacy of apheresis in reducing AP severity cannot be made. We propose which patients may be best suitable for apheresis, type of studies needed and outcome measures to be studied in order to provide empiric data on the role of apheresis in HTG-related AP.

Evaluating the MEDLINE Core Clinical Journals filter: data-driven evidence assessing clinical utility.

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: MEDLINE offers the Core Clinical Journals filter to limit to clinically useful journals. To determine its effectiveness for searching and patient-centric decision making, this study compared literature used for Morning Report in Internal Medicine with journals in the filter. METHOD: An EndNote library with references answering 327 patient-related questions during Morning Report from 2007 to 2012 was exported to a file listing variables including designated Core Clinical Journal, Impact Factor, date used and medical subject. Bradford's law of scattering was applied ranking the journals and reflecting their clinical utility. Recall (sensitivity) and precision of the Core Morning Report journals and non-Core set was calculated. This study applied bibliometrics to compare the 628 articles used against these criteria to determine journals impacting decision making. RESULTS: Analysis shows 30% of clinically used articles are from the Core Clinical Journals filter and 16% of the journals represented are Core titles. When Bradford-ranked, 55% of the top 20 journals are Core. Articles <5 years old furnish 63% of sources used. Among the 63 Morning Report subjects, 55 have <50% precision and 41 have <50% recall including 37 subjects with 0% precision and 0% recall. CONCLUSIONS: Low usage of publications within the Core Clinical Journals filter indicates less relevance for hospital-based care. The divergence from high-impact medicine titles suggests clinically valuable journals differ from academically important titles. With few subjects demonstrating high recall or precision, the MEDLINE Core Clinical Journals filter may require a review and update to better align with current clinical needs.

Development and validation of filters for the retrieval of studies of clinical examination from Medline.

BACKGROUND: Efficiently finding clinical examination studies--studies that quantify the value of symptoms and signs in the diagnosis of disease-is becoming increasingly difficult. Filters developed to retrieve studies of diagnosis from Medline lack specificity because they also retrieve large numbers of studies on the diagnostic value of imaging and laboratory tests. OBJECTIVE: The objective was to develop filters for retrieving clinical examination studies from Medline. METHODS: We developed filters in a training dataset and validated them in a testing database. We created the training database by hand searching 161 journals (n = 52,636 studies). We evaluated the recall and precision of 65 candidate single-term filters in identifying studies that reported the sensitivity and specificity of symptoms or signs in the training database. To identify best combinations of these search terms, we used recursive partitioning. The best-performing filters in the training database as well as 13 previously developed filters were evaluated in a testing database (n = 431,120 studies). We also examined the impact of examining reference lists of included articles on recall. RESULTS: In the training database, the single-term filters with the highest recall (95%) and the highest precision (8.4%) were diagnosis[subheading] and "medical history taking"[MeSH], respectively. The multiple-term filter developed using recursive partitioning (the RP filter) had a recall of 100% and a precision of 89% in the training database. In the testing database, the Haynes-2004-Sensitive filter (recall 98%, precision 0.13%) and the RP filter (recall 89%, precision 0.52%) showed the best performance. The recall of these two filters increased to 99% and 94% respectively with review of the reference lists of the included articles. CONCLUSIONS: Recursive partitioning appears to be a useful method of developing search filters. The empirical search filters proposed here can assist in the retrieval of clinical examination studies from Medline; however, because of the low precision of the search strategies, retrieving relevant studies remains challenging. Improving precision may require systematic changes in the tagging of articles by the National Library of Medicine.

Type of evidence behind point-of-care clinical information products: a bibliometric analysis.

BACKGROUND: Point-of-care (POC) products are widely used as information reference tools in the clinical setting. Although usability, scope of coverage, ability to answer clinical questions, and impact on health outcomes have been studied, no comparative analysis of the characteristics of the references, the evidence for the content, in POC products is available. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare the type of evidence behind five POC clinical information products. METHODS: This study is a comparative bibliometric analysis of references cited in monographs in POC products. Five commonly used products served as subjects for the study: ACP PIER, Clinical Evidence, DynaMed, FirstCONSULT, and UpToDate. The four clinical topics examined to identify content in the products were asthma, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and carbon monoxide poisoning. Four indicators were measured: distribution of citations, type of evidence, product currency, and citation overlap. The type of evidence was determined based primarily on the publication type found in the MEDLINE bibliographic record, as well as the Medical Subject Headings (MeSH), both assigned by the US National Library of Medicine. MeSH is the controlled vocabulary used for indexing articles in MEDLINE/PubMed. RESULTS: FirstCONSULT had the greatest proportion of references with higher levels of evidence publication types such as systematic review and randomized controlled trial (137/153, 89.5%), although it contained the lowest total number of references (153/2330, 6.6%). DynaMed had the largest total number of references (1131/2330, 48.5%) and the largest proportion of current (2007-2009) references (170/1131, 15%). The distribution of references cited for each topic varied between products. For example, asthma had the most references listed in DynaMed, Clinical Evidence, and FirstCONSULT, while hypertension had the most references in UpToDate and ACP PIER. An unexpected finding was that the rate of citation overlap was less than 1% for each topic across all five products. CONCLUSIONS: Differences between POC products are revealed by examining the references cited in the monographs themselves. Citation analysis extended to include key content indicators can be used to compare the evidence levels of the literature supporting the content found in POC products.