A review of the website TeamScience.net.

As modern research methods have become more specialized and the true complexity of today's most pressing health issues and diseases is revealed, collaborations among scientists trained in different fields have become essential for exploring and tackling these problems. This specialization of research methods has made interdependence, joint ownership, and collective responsibility between and among scientists near requirements. These features of team science may not suit everyone, but given these current trends, it is increasingly likely that most researchers will find themselves asked to participate on or lead a research team at some point in their careers.

Screening for dysglycaemia in dental primary care practice settings: systematic review of the evidence.

INTRODUCTION: Increasing prevalence of diabetes and periodontal disease is prompting identification of additional clinical settings to identify patients at risk for dysglycaemia. A systematic review of studies that have examined feasibility of screening for at-risk patients in general dentistry settings at point-of-care (POC) was undertaken. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Systematic review of pragmatic clinical field trials piloting POC screening for dysglycaemia risk in dental settings was undertaken in studies whose primary objective was to explore rates of dysglycaemia among undiagnosed patient populations. RESULTS: Among 17 dental clinical field trials identified, 10 were systematically reviewed. High rates of undiagnosed dysglycaemia were detected among dental patients by biological screening in all trials. Notably, substantive differences in study design and population characteristics were identified, precluding meta-analysis. CONCLUSION: Screening for dysglycaemia in dental offices effectively identified high-risk patients requiring triage for glycaemic management. Considerations for future clinical trial design were advanced to establish an evidence base amenable to meta-analysis of the relative translational value of glycaemic screening in dental settings.

MD-CTS: An integrated terminology reference of clinical and translational medicine.

New vocabularies are rapidly evolving in the literature relative to the practice of clinical medicine and translational research. To provide integrated access to new terms, we developed a mobile and desktop online reference-Marshfield Dictionary of Clinical and Translational Science (MD-CTS). It is the first public resource that comprehensively integrates Wiktionary (word definition), BioPortal (ontology), Wiki (image reference), and Medline abstract (word usage) information. MD-CTS is accessible at http://spellchecker.mfldclin.edu/. The website provides a broadened capacity for the wider clinical and translational science community to keep pace with newly emerging scientific vocabulary. An initial evaluation using 63 randomly selected biomedical words suggests that online references generally provided better coverage (73%-95%) than paper-based dictionaries (57-71%).

Assessing the impact of a medical librarian on identification of valid and actionable practice gaps for a continuing medical education committee.

INTRODUCTION: Identifying educational needs related to professional practice gaps can be a complex process for continuing medical education (CME) committees and for physicians who submit activity applications. Medical librarians possess unique skills that may be useful for identifying practice gaps relevant to CME committees. We assessed this assumption by assessing a medical librarian's contributions to practice gap identification for the Marshfield Clinic's CME Committee. METHODS: We reviewed all locally relevant, locally actionable practice gaps identified annually by various stakeholders and presented to our CME Committee from 2010 to 2013. Total numbers of practice gaps identified, total categorized as actionable, and numbers of subsequent activities resulting from these gaps were calculated for each year. Medical librarian totals were compared to those of other CME committee stakeholders to determine the relative contribution. RESULTS: The medical librarian identified unique, actionable published practice gaps that directly contributed to CME activity planning. For each study year, contributions by the medical librarian grew, from 0 of 27 actionable gaps validated by CME Committee in 2010 to 49 of 108 (45.4%) in 2013. With the librarian's assistance, the number of valid practice gaps submitted between 2010 and 2013 by stakeholders climbed from 23 for 155 activities (14.8%) to 133 for 157 activities (84.7%). CONCLUSION: Medical librarians can provide a valuable service to CME committees by identifying valid professional practice gaps that inform decisions about educational activities aimed at improving clinical practice. Medical librarians bring into deliberations unique information, including national health policy priorities, practice gaps found in the literature, and point-of-care search engine statistics.