HAPPY FIRST DAY OF SPRING!
(from the San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Complex in California)
Wednesday, March 20, 2013
Thursday, March 14, 2013
PICTURE OF THE WEEK:: ARTIC TERN
These images are from the famous Birds of America
These imThesThis e images are from the famous Birds of Americaages are from the famous Birds of America
This image is from the famous Audubon's Birds of America
What is included in the CINAHL Evidence-Based Practice limiter?
If you use the CINAHL Evidence-Based Practice Limiter, do you wonder what is it really limiting? This is EBSCO's explanation:
Evidence-Based Practice is a value that can be found in the Special Interest field of some CINAHL records. This value is associated with a record when an article is about the application of Evidence-Based medicine.
Evidence-based medicine is a medical movement based upon the application of the scientific method to medical practice, including long-established existing medical traditions not yet subjected to adequate scientific scrutiny. According to the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, "Evidence-based medicine is the conscientious, explicit and judicious use of current best evidence in making decisions about the care of individual patients."
When applied, the Evidence-Based Practice limiter searches the Special Interest field for the value "Evidence-Based Practice." Applying this limiter allows you to limit results to:
• Articles from evidence-based practice journals
• Articles about evidence-based practice
• Research articles (including systematic reviews, clinical trials, meta analyses, etc.)
• Commentaries on research studies (applying practice to research)
It does not limit searchers to articles that report evidence-based conclusions.
Evidence-Based Practice is a value that can be found in the Special Interest field of some CINAHL records. This value is associated with a record when an article is about the application of Evidence-Based medicine.
Evidence-based medicine is a medical movement based upon the application of the scientific method to medical practice, including long-established existing medical traditions not yet subjected to adequate scientific scrutiny. According to the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, "Evidence-based medicine is the conscientious, explicit and judicious use of current best evidence in making decisions about the care of individual patients."
When applied, the Evidence-Based Practice limiter searches the Special Interest field for the value "Evidence-Based Practice." Applying this limiter allows you to limit results to:
• Articles from evidence-based practice journals
• Articles about evidence-based practice
• Research articles (including systematic reviews, clinical trials, meta analyses, etc.)
• Commentaries on research studies (applying practice to research)
It does not limit searchers to articles that report evidence-based conclusions.
Improving Patient Safety: Systematic Reviews
"Making Health Care Safer: A Critical Review of Evidence Supporting Strategies to Improve Patient Safety" is the title of the supplement to the March 5th Annals of Internal Medicine. An introduction provides a detailed explanation of this evidence-based assessment of patient safety strategies followed by 10 systematic reviews based on that research. This is valuable information for health care providers. The supplement also is an example of how to set up evidence-based research and what sets a systematic review apart.
What is a systematic review?
A systematic review attempts to collate all empirical evidence that fits pre-specified eligibility criteria in order to answer a specific research question. It uses explicit, systematic methods that are selected with a view to minimizing bias, thus providing more reliable findings from which conclusions can be drawn and decisions made. The key characteristics of a systematic review are:
•a clearly stated set of objectives with pre-defined eligibility criteria for studies;
•an explicit, reproducible methodology;
•a systematic search that attempts to identify all studies that would meet the eligibility criteria;
•an assessment of the validity of the findings of the included studies, for example through the assessment of risk of bias; and
•a systematic presentation, and synthesis, of the characteristics and findings of the included studies.
Many systematic reviews contain meta-analyses. Meta-analysis is the use of statistical methods to summarize the results of independent studies. Meta-analyses can provide more precise estimates of the effects of health care than those derived from the individual studies included within a review. They also facilitate investigations of the consistency of evidence across studies, and the exploration of differences across studies.
(This information comes from Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 updated March 2011.)
What is a systematic review?
A systematic review attempts to collate all empirical evidence that fits pre-specified eligibility criteria in order to answer a specific research question. It uses explicit, systematic methods that are selected with a view to minimizing bias, thus providing more reliable findings from which conclusions can be drawn and decisions made. The key characteristics of a systematic review are:
•a clearly stated set of objectives with pre-defined eligibility criteria for studies;
•an explicit, reproducible methodology;
•a systematic search that attempts to identify all studies that would meet the eligibility criteria;
•an assessment of the validity of the findings of the included studies, for example through the assessment of risk of bias; and
•a systematic presentation, and synthesis, of the characteristics and findings of the included studies.
Many systematic reviews contain meta-analyses. Meta-analysis is the use of statistical methods to summarize the results of independent studies. Meta-analyses can provide more precise estimates of the effects of health care than those derived from the individual studies included within a review. They also facilitate investigations of the consistency of evidence across studies, and the exploration of differences across studies.
(This information comes from Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 updated March 2011.)
Thursday, March 07, 2013
Enculturation: Faculty Publication Opportunity
David Parry, an assistant professor of emerging media and communications at the University of Texas at Dallas, argues that scholars have an obligation to publish their research in journals that make free copies available online. The debate over open access to research has heated up in recent months among college faculty and librarians. Libraries are finding it increasingly difficult to purchase excessively high priced journals--some running as much as $40,000 a year. With that in mind, this blog will regularly post information about this debate and professional journals offering open issues who encourage faculty to submit publications. Enculturation is the first one in this series.
Enculturation is a refereed journal devoted to contemporary theories of rhetoric, writing, and culture. They accept academic work in all media forms suitable for web-based publication, including conventional articles, hypertexts, videos, and multimedia projects. Submitted articles and projects are blind-reviewed and considered for publication on the understanding that they are not under consideration elsewhere. Traditional articles should be approximately 4000-6000 words long, reviews 1000-2000 words. They also invite unsolicited reviews for books, CDs, films, websites, media events, and conferences. Enculturation is published under an Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike Creative Commons License.
Current Isssue 15: Open Issue
Table of Contents:
http://enculturation.gmu.edu/15
Enculturation is a refereed journal devoted to contemporary theories of rhetoric, writing, and culture. They accept academic work in all media forms suitable for web-based publication, including conventional articles, hypertexts, videos, and multimedia projects. Submitted articles and projects are blind-reviewed and considered for publication on the understanding that they are not under consideration elsewhere. Traditional articles should be approximately 4000-6000 words long, reviews 1000-2000 words. They also invite unsolicited reviews for books, CDs, films, websites, media events, and conferences. Enculturation is published under an Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike Creative Commons License.
Current Isssue 15: Open Issue
Table of Contents:
http://enculturation.gmu.edu/15
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)