Research engagement of health sciences librarians: a survey of research-related activities and attitudes.

INTRODUCTION: The extent to which health sciences librarians are engaged in research is a little-studied question. This study assesses the research activities and attitudes of Medical Library Association (MLA) members, including the influence of work affiliation. METHODS: An online survey was designed using a combination of multiple-choice and open-ended questions and distributed to MLA members. Responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics, content analysis, and significance testing. The authors used statistical tools and categorized open-ended question topics by the constant comparative method, also applying the broad subject categories used in a prior study. Pearson's chi-square analysis was performed on responses to determine significant differences among respondents employed in three different institutional environments. RESULTS: Analysis showed that 79% of respondents read research articles at least once a month; 58% applied published research studies to practice; 44% had conducted research; 62% reported acting on research had enhanced their libraries; 38% had presented findings; and 34% had authored research articles. Hospital librarians were significantly less likely than academic librarians to have participated in research activities. Highly ranked research benefits, barriers, and competencies of health sciences librarians are described. CONCLUSIONS: Findings indicate that health sciences librarians are actively engaged in research activities. Practice implications for practitioners, publishers, and stakeholders are discussed. Results suggest that practitioners can use published research results and results from their own research to affect practice decisions and improve services. Future studies are needed to confirm and extend these findings, including the need for intervention studies to increase research and writing productivity.

The Frontera Collaboration: a preliminary report of health sciences librarians promoting evidence-based practice in U.S.-Mexico border communities.

This article reviews the formation of the Frontera Collaboration, a coalition of health sciences librarians serving clinicians and public health personnel in the U.S.-Mexico border region. Based on findings from an assessment of the target populations' learning needs, the Frontera Collaboration participants developed a shared set of training materials that have been used in pilot training sessions. The Frontera Collaboration's participants learned several lessons related to collaborative health information outreach and increased their understanding of the concerns and needs of clinicians and public health personnel serving border communities.

Laboratory Detection and Initial Diagnosis of Monoclonal Gammopathies.

CONTEXT.­: The process for identifying patients with monoclonal gammopathies is complex. Initial detection of a monoclonal immunoglobulin protein (M protein) in the serum or urine often requires compilation of analytical data from several areas of the laboratory. The detection of M proteins depends on adequacy of the sample provided, available clinical information, and the laboratory tests used. OBJECTIVE.­: To develop an evidence-based guideline for the initial laboratory detection of M proteins. DESIGN.­: To develop evidence-based recommendations, the College of American Pathologists convened a panel of experts in the diagnosis and treatment of monoclonal gammopathies and the laboratory procedures used for the initial detection of M proteins. The panel conducted a systematic literature review to address key questions. Using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach, recommendations were created based on the available evidence, strength of that evidence, and key judgements as defined in the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation Evidence to Decision framework. RESULTS.­: Nine guideline statements were established to optimize sample selection and testing for the initial detection and quantitative measurement of M proteins used to diagnose monoclonal gammopathies. CONCLUSIONS.­: This guideline was constructed to harmonize and strengthen the initial detection of an M protein in patients displaying symptoms or laboratory features of a monoclonal gammopathy. It endorses more comprehensive initial testing when there is suspicion of amyloid light chain amyloidosis or neuropathies, such as POEMS (polyneuropathy, organomegaly, endocrinopathy, M protein, and skin changes) syndrome, associated with an M protein.

Collection and Handling of Thoracic Small Biopsy and Cytology Specimens for Ancillary Studies: Guideline From the College of American Pathologists in Collaboration With the American College of Chest Physicians, Association for Molecular Pathology, American Society of Cytopathology, American Thoracic Society, Pulmonary Pathology Society, Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology, Society of Interventional Radiology, and Society of Thoracic Radiology.

CONTEXT.­: The need for appropriate specimen use for ancillary testing has become more commonplace in the practice of pathology. This, coupled with improvements in technology, often provides less invasive methods of testing, but presents new challenges to appropriate specimen collection and handling of these small specimens, including thoracic small biopsy and cytology samples. OBJECTIVE.­: To develop a clinical practice guideline including recommendations on how to obtain, handle, and process thoracic small biopsy and cytology tissue specimens for diagnostic testing and ancillary studies. METHODS.­: The College of American Pathologists convened an expert panel to perform a systematic review of the literature and develop recommendations. Core needle biopsy, touch preparation, fine-needle aspiration, and effusion specimens with thoracic diseases including malignancy, granulomatous process/sarcoidosis, and infection (eg, tuberculosis) were deemed within scope. Ancillary studies included immunohistochemistry and immunocytochemistry, fluorescence in situ hybridization, mutational analysis, flow cytometry, cytogenetics, and microbiologic studies routinely performed in the clinical pathology laboratory. The use of rapid on-site evaluation was also covered. RESULTS.­: Sixteen guideline statements were developed to assist clinicians and pathologists in collecting and processing thoracic small biopsy and cytology tissue samples. CONCLUSIONS.­: Based on the systematic review and expert panel consensus, thoracic small specimens can be handled and processed to perform downstream testing (eg, molecular markers, immunohistochemical biomarkers), core needle and fine-needle techniques can provide appropriate cytologic and histologic specimens for ancillary studies, and rapid on-site cytologic evaluation remains helpful in appropriate triage, handling, and processing of specimens.

Circulating Tumor DNA Analysis in Patients With Cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology and College of American Pathologists Joint Review.

PURPOSE.­: Clinical use of analytical tests to assess genomic variants in circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) is increasing. This joint review from the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the College of American Pathologists summarizes current information about clinical ctDNA assays and provides a framework for future research. METHODS.­: An Expert Panel conducted a literature review on the use of ctDNA assays for solid tumors, including preanalytical variables, analytical validity, interpretation and reporting, and clinical validity and utility. RESULTS.­: The literature search identified 1338 references. Of those, 390, plus 31 references supplied by the Expert Panel, were selected for full-text review. There were 77 articles selected for inclusion. CONCLUSIONS.­: The evidence indicates that testing for ctDNA is optimally performed on plasma collected in cell stabilization or EDTA tubes, with EDTA tubes processed within 6 hours of collection. Some ctDNA assays have demonstrated clinical validity and utility with certain types of advanced cancer; however, there is insufficient evidence of clinical validity and utility for the majority of ctDNA assays in advanced cancer. Evidence shows discordance between the results of ctDNA assays and genotyping tumor specimens, and supports tumor tissue genotyping to confirm undetected results from ctDNA tests. There is no evidence of clinical utility and little evidence of clinical validity of ctDNA assays in early-stage cancer, treatment monitoring, or residual disease detection. There is no evidence of clinical validity or clinical utility to suggest that ctDNA assays are useful for cancer screening, outside of a clinical trial. Given the rapid pace of research, reevaluation of the literature will shortly be required, along with the development of tools and guidance for clinical practice.

Circulating Tumor DNA Analysis in Patients With Cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology and College of American Pathologists Joint Review.

Purpose Clinical use of analytical tests to assess genomic variants in circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) is increasing. This joint review from ASCO and the College of American Pathologists summarizes current information about clinical ctDNA assays and provides a framework for future research. Methods An Expert Panel conducted a literature review on the use of ctDNA assays for solid tumors, including pre-analytical variables, analytical validity, interpretation and reporting, and clinical validity and utility. Results The literature search identified 1,338 references. Of those, 390, plus 31 references supplied by the Expert Panel, were selected for full-text review. There were 77 articles selected for inclusion. Conclusion The evidence indicates that testing for ctDNA is optimally performed on plasma collected in cell stabilization or EDTA tubes, with EDTA tubes processed within 6 hours of collection. Some ctDNA assays have demonstrated clinical validity and utility with certain types of advanced cancer; however, there is insufficient evidence of clinical validity and utility for the majority of ctDNA assays in advanced cancer. Evidence shows discordance between the results of ctDNA assays and genotyping tumor specimens and supports tumor tissue genotyping to confirm undetected results from ctDNA tests. There is no evidence of clinical utility and little evidence of clinical validity of ctDNA assays in early-stage cancer, treatment monitoring, or residual disease detection. There is no evidence of clinical validity and clinical utility to suggest that ctDNA assays are useful for cancer screening, outside of a clinical trial. Given the rapid pace of research, re-evaluation of the literature will shortly be required, along with the development of tools and guidance for clinical practice.