C O M M E N T A N D
O P IN IO N
A n in n o v a t iv e m o d e l o f e v i d e n c e - b a s e d p r a c t i c e f o r o t h e r p r o f e s s io n s ^ J o n a t h a n D . E ld r e d g e , M L S , P h D , A H IP ; M a r ie T . A s c h e r , M S , A H IP ; H e a t h e r N . H o lm e s , M L IS , A H IP DOI: http://dx.doi.Org/10.3163/1536-5050 .103.2.009
Our profession could very well become a model for other professions wishing to become more evidence based. At this moment, autonomous teams of our colleagues are conduct ing systematic reviews to address the fifteen top-ranked research questions in the current Medical Library Asso ciation (MLA) research agenda [1]. These systematic review teams in clude mostly US members, although a third of the teams' members hail from other nations such as Australia, Canada, Iran, Ireland, Qatar, and the United Kingdom. Readers probably know one or more members of these teams. Most of these groups have been working in relative obscurity. That is, until now. Several other professions have defined their research agendas [24]. Researchers representing the health professions and a wide range of other professions as diverse as the behavioral, social, policy, environ mental, and management sciences have also conducted systematic re views [5-14]. To the authors' knowl edge, however, only our profession has linked these two discrete activi ties coherently into a potentially potent strategy. This linkage could draw attention to our profession as an innovative leader in evidencebased practice. We predict that other professions likely will want to adapt our approach to address the needs of their own respective memberships. Each systematic review team has refined its focused research ques tion at this time and is at a different stage of completion of the respec tive systematic reviews. Recently, one team published its findings in the Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association (JAMIA) [15]. Some teams reported on their prog^ ^ 3 Supplemental Table 1 is available with the online version of this journal.
100
ress at the MLA 2014 annual meeting [16-18]. Other teams are still closer to tire formative stages of their reviews. Constituting the MLA Research Sec tion's Research Agenda Committee, we have developed general guide lines for forming and managing the teams [19]. When necessary, or as requested, we have provided guid ance on conducting the systematic reviews. Table 1 (online only) lists the subject areas of the reviews, team leaders' names, and team leaders' contact information. Background This systematic review initiative trac es its origins to the renewal of the MLA research policy by leaders in our profession [20]. The 2007 MLA research policy, The Research Impera tive, set bold directions for our profession's generation and use of applied research for making deci sions. Two recommendations, ap pearing in the first section of the action plan for the policy, catalyzed a process that has now led to the systematic review initiative. These recommendations are that MLA will: ■ Ask the MLA Research Section to create a forum for identifying research priorities in the field. ■ Ask the Research Section to rec ommend annually to the MLA Board of Directors an MLA research agenda that suggests research topics of high est priority to the association [21]. The first MLA research agenda, which appeared during 2009, offered twelve key research questions [22], The MLA Research Section asked the authors to conduct a second delphi study during 2011 to identify new top-ranked research questions [1]. The authors thought that these fif teen new questions needed to be addressed with systematic reviews. They developed a process that would allow them to coordinate the formation and monitor the progress of tire fifteen teams aligned to each of the fifteen questions [19]. The authors
decided to grant near-complete au tonomy to the teams. This autonomy, coupled to the authors' encourage ment that teams manage themselves with relatively flat organizational structures, seemed to enable the teams to conduct the systematic reviews in ways that the teams thought to be most appropriate. The authors expect that, over the coming year, most of the teams will submit their systematic reviews for publica tion. This initiative will help popu late a growing list of nearly fifty systematic reviews affecting our pro fession [23]. As most Journal of the Medical Library Association readers know, systematic reviews represent potentially the highest form of evi dence in evidence-based library and information practice (EBLIP) [24, 25]. What you can do There are three arenas in your practice where you can act upon this information: individual, institu tional, and professional association. Individual. On the individual lev el, you can model EBLIP by using systematic reviews to make impor tant decisions. When systematic re views are not available, you can still use the highest forms of evidence such as a randomized controlled trial or cohort study. You also can en courage colleagues who are conduct ing systematic reviews by thanking them for their efforts. Most impor tantly, you can identify vital ques tions that remain unanswered, for mulate effective EBLIP questions [26], and alert colleagues about these gaps. Whenever possible, you should urge MLA leaders to contribute questions for future MLA research agenda formulation processes. Institutional. Groups of colleagues making joint decisions on important matters can use systematic reviews or other forms of high-level evidence.
J Med Lib Assoc 103(2) April 2015
Comment and opinion
We can identify and discuss gaps in the existing evidence base and alert our colleagues to these gaps. When ever possible, we can encourage MLA leaders to contribute questions for future MLA research agenda formu lation processes. Institutionally, we can create incentives for interested colleagues to join teams conducting systematic reviews through granting research leave. We also can encourage agencies to fund systematic review teams through grants or contracts. Professional association. As a profession, we can encourage the pursuit of systematic reviews by creating incentives through grants, contracts, awards, or other recog nitions for team members. We can encourage MLA leaders to submit w hat they view to be the most important research questions and to vote on others' worthy ques tions. We can encourage published researchers to lend their expertise in gauging the answerability of leaders' research questions. The authors will host a session on this systematic review project during the first section program at MLA '15 in Austin, Texas. We invite you to attend this session to learn more about this innovative project, introduce your own ideas, and raise any questions. Jonathan D. Eldredge, MLS, PhD, AHIP (correspond ing author), jeldr [email protected], As sociate Professor, Biomedical Infor matics Research, Training arid Schol arship, Health Sci ences Library and Informatics Center/Family and Com munity Medicine, 1 University of New Mexico, MSC09 5100, Albuquerque, N M 87131-0001; Marie T. Ascher, M S, AHIP, [email protected], Associate Director, User Services, Health Sciences Library, New York Medical College, 15 Dana Road, Val halla, N Y 10595; Heather N. Holmes, MLIS, AHIP, holmesh@summahealth .org, Clinical lnformationist, Medical Library, Summa Health System, A k ron City & St. Thomas Hospitals, and
J Med Lib Assoc 103(2) April 2015
Instructor, Department of Internal Medicine, Northeastern Ohio Medical University, 55 Arch Street, Suite G-3, Akron, OH 44304
References 1. Eldredge JD, Ascher MT, Holmes HN, Harris MR. The new Medical Library Association research agenda: final results from a three-phase delphi study. J Med Lib Assoc. 2012 Jul;100(3):214-8. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050 .100.3.012. PubM ed PMID: 22879811; PubM ed Central PMCI: 3411260. 2. Edwards LH. Research priorities in school nursing: a delphi process. J School Nurs. 2002 Jun;18(3):157-62. 3. Cohen MZ, Harle M, Woll AM, Despa S, Munsell MF. Delphi survey of nursing research priorities. Oncol N urs Forum. 2004 Sep 17;31(5):1011-8. PubMed PMID: 15378103. 4. Burnette D, Morrow-Howell N, Chen LM. Setting priorities for geron tological social work research: a na tional delphi study. Gerontologist. 2003 Dec;43(6):828-38. Pub Med PMID: 14704382. 5. Guyatt G, Jaeschke R, Prasad K, Cook DJ. Summarizing the evidence. In: Guyatt G, Rennie D, eds. Users' guide to the medical literature: essen tials of evidence-based clinical prac tice. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 2008. pp. 239-64. 6. Porritt K, Gomersall J, Lockwood C. JBI's systematic reviews: study selec tion and critical appraisal. Am J Nurs. 2014 Jun;114(6):47-52. DOI: h ttp ://d x .doi.org/10.1097/01.NAJ.0000450430 .97383.64. PubMed PMID: 24869584. 7. Brownson RC, Chriqui JF, Stamatakis KA. Understanding evi dence-based public health policy. Am J Public Health. 2009 Sep;99(9): 1576-83. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10 .2105/AJPH.2008.156224. Epub 2009 Jul 16. PubMed PMID: 19608941; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2724448. 8. Barends E, Rousseau DM, Briner RB. Evidence-based management: the basic principles. Amsterdam, The Nether lands: Center for Evidence-Based Man agement; 2014. 9. American Psychological Association Presidential Task Force on EvidenceBased Practice. Evidence-based prac tice in psychology. Am Psychology. 2006 May-Jun;61(4):271-85. “ PubMed PMID: 16719673. 10. Gambrill ED. Evidence-based prac tice: sea change or the emperor's new clothes? J Soc Work Educ. 2003 Winter;39(l):3-23.
11. Castello LD, Gil-Gonzalez D, AlvarezDardet Diaz C, Hernandez-Aguado I. The environmental millennium development goal: progress and barriers to its achieve ment. Environ Sci Policy. 2010;13:154-63. 12. Pittaway L, Cope J. Entrepreneurship education: a systematic review of the evidence. Int Small Bus J. 2007 Oct;25(5):479-510. 13. Sundberg T, Taylor-Gooby P. A systematic review of comparative stud ies of attitudes to social policy. Soc Policy Admin. 2013 Aug;47(4):416-33. 14. Petrosino A, Boruch RF, Soydan H, Duggan L, Sanchez-Meca J. Meeting the challenges of evidence-based poli cy: the Campbell Collaboration. Ann Am Acad Pol Soc Sci. 2001;578:14-34. 15. Perrier L, Farrell A, Ayala AP, Lightfoot D, Kenny T, Aaronson E, Allee N, Brigham T, Connor E, Constantinescu T, Muellenbach J, Epstein HAB, Weiss A. Effects of librar ian-provided services in healthcare set tings: a systematic review. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2014 May 28;21:1118-24. Review. PubMed PMID: 24872341. 16. Glynn LA, Sakmar K, Lalla NJ, Berry R, Kim C, Geldenhuys PR, Lawton A, Siebert JL, McClurg C, Clemans-Taylor L, Gadd K, Ettien AL. The value to and impact of health sciences libraries and information ser vices on academic and clinical practice: a systematic review. Presented at: MLA '14, 114th Annual Meeting of the Medical Library Association; Chi cago, IL; 16-21 May 2014. 17. Anderson PF, Bickett S, Doucette J, Herring PR, Kammerer J, Kepsel A, Lyons T, McLachlan S, Tonnison I, Wu L. Tools for building our informa tion future: emerging technologies vi tal to medical libraries. Poster present ed at: MLA '14, 114th Annual Meeting of the Medical Library Association; Chicago, IL; 16-21 May 2014. 18. Anderson PF, Bickett S, Doucette J, Herring PR, Kammerer J, Kepsel A, Lyons T, McLachlan S, Tonnison I, Wu L. Future technological practices: medical librarians' skills and informa tion structures for continued effective ness in a changing environment. Pre sented at: MLA '14, 114th Annual Meeting of the Medical Library Asso ciation; Chicago, IL; 16-21 May 2014. 19. Ascher MT, Eldredge ID, Holmes HN, Harris MR. The MLA research agenda: appraising the best available evidence [Internet]. Proposed guidelines to the MLA Research Sec tion Executive Committee. Working paper. 2012 Nov 2 [cited 2 Dec 2014]. < h ttp ://repository.unm .edu/handle/ 1928/24634>.
101
Comment and opinion
20. Grefsheim SF, Rankin JA, Perry GJ, McKibbon KA. Affirming our commit ment to research: the Medical Library Association's research policy statement: the process and findings. J Med Lib Assoc. 2008 Apr;96(2):114-20. DOI: http ://d x .doi.org/ 10.3163/1536-5050.96.2.114. 21. Medical Library Association. The research imperative: the research pol icy statement of the Medical Library Association [Internet]. Chicago, IL: The Association; 2007 Appendix 4: action plan. Section one [cited 10 Mar 2014], < h ttp :/ / w w w .m lan et.o rg /research / policy/policy-12.htm l>. 22. Eldredge JD, Harris MR, Ascher MT. Defining the Medical Library Associ
102
ation research agenda: methodology and final results from a consensus process. J Med Lib Assoc. 2009 Jul;97(3):178-85. DOI: h ttp ://d x .d o i .org/10.3163/1536-5050.97.3.006. PubMed PMID: 19626143; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2706444. 23. Koufogiannakis D. LB systematic reviews [Internet], [cited 16 May 2014]. < http://lis-systematic-reviews.wikispaces .com /B y+author> . 24. Sampson M. Welcoming systemat ic reviews to the Journal of the Medical Library Association. J Med Lib Assoc. 2014 Jul;102(3):143-5. DOI: h ttp ://d x .doi.org/ 10.3163/1536-5050.102.3.001.
25. Eldredge JD, Hannigan GG. Emerging trends in health sciences librarianship. In: Wood MS, ed. Health sciences librarianship. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield and the Medical Library Association; 2014. pp. 57-83. 26. Booth A. Clear and present ques tions: formulating questions for evi dence based practice. Lib Hi Tech. 2006;24(3):355-68.
Received September 2014; accepted November 2014
J Med Lib Assoc 103(2) April 2015
Copyright of Journal of the Medical Library Association is the property of Medical Library Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
O P IN IO N
A n in n o v a t iv e m o d e l o f e v i d e n c e - b a s e d p r a c t i c e f o r o t h e r p r o f e s s io n s ^ J o n a t h a n D . E ld r e d g e , M L S , P h D , A H IP ; M a r ie T . A s c h e r , M S , A H IP ; H e a t h e r N . H o lm e s , M L IS , A H IP DOI: http://dx.doi.Org/10.3163/1536-5050 .103.2.009
Our profession could very well become a model for other professions wishing to become more evidence based. At this moment, autonomous teams of our colleagues are conduct ing systematic reviews to address the fifteen top-ranked research questions in the current Medical Library Asso ciation (MLA) research agenda [1]. These systematic review teams in clude mostly US members, although a third of the teams' members hail from other nations such as Australia, Canada, Iran, Ireland, Qatar, and the United Kingdom. Readers probably know one or more members of these teams. Most of these groups have been working in relative obscurity. That is, until now. Several other professions have defined their research agendas [24]. Researchers representing the health professions and a wide range of other professions as diverse as the behavioral, social, policy, environ mental, and management sciences have also conducted systematic re views [5-14]. To the authors' knowl edge, however, only our profession has linked these two discrete activi ties coherently into a potentially potent strategy. This linkage could draw attention to our profession as an innovative leader in evidencebased practice. We predict that other professions likely will want to adapt our approach to address the needs of their own respective memberships. Each systematic review team has refined its focused research ques tion at this time and is at a different stage of completion of the respec tive systematic reviews. Recently, one team published its findings in the Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association (JAMIA) [15]. Some teams reported on their prog^ ^ 3 Supplemental Table 1 is available with the online version of this journal.
100
ress at the MLA 2014 annual meeting [16-18]. Other teams are still closer to tire formative stages of their reviews. Constituting the MLA Research Sec tion's Research Agenda Committee, we have developed general guide lines for forming and managing the teams [19]. When necessary, or as requested, we have provided guid ance on conducting the systematic reviews. Table 1 (online only) lists the subject areas of the reviews, team leaders' names, and team leaders' contact information. Background This systematic review initiative trac es its origins to the renewal of the MLA research policy by leaders in our profession [20]. The 2007 MLA research policy, The Research Impera tive, set bold directions for our profession's generation and use of applied research for making deci sions. Two recommendations, ap pearing in the first section of the action plan for the policy, catalyzed a process that has now led to the systematic review initiative. These recommendations are that MLA will: ■ Ask the MLA Research Section to create a forum for identifying research priorities in the field. ■ Ask the Research Section to rec ommend annually to the MLA Board of Directors an MLA research agenda that suggests research topics of high est priority to the association [21]. The first MLA research agenda, which appeared during 2009, offered twelve key research questions [22], The MLA Research Section asked the authors to conduct a second delphi study during 2011 to identify new top-ranked research questions [1]. The authors thought that these fif teen new questions needed to be addressed with systematic reviews. They developed a process that would allow them to coordinate the formation and monitor the progress of tire fifteen teams aligned to each of the fifteen questions [19]. The authors
decided to grant near-complete au tonomy to the teams. This autonomy, coupled to the authors' encourage ment that teams manage themselves with relatively flat organizational structures, seemed to enable the teams to conduct the systematic reviews in ways that the teams thought to be most appropriate. The authors expect that, over the coming year, most of the teams will submit their systematic reviews for publica tion. This initiative will help popu late a growing list of nearly fifty systematic reviews affecting our pro fession [23]. As most Journal of the Medical Library Association readers know, systematic reviews represent potentially the highest form of evi dence in evidence-based library and information practice (EBLIP) [24, 25]. What you can do There are three arenas in your practice where you can act upon this information: individual, institu tional, and professional association. Individual. On the individual lev el, you can model EBLIP by using systematic reviews to make impor tant decisions. When systematic re views are not available, you can still use the highest forms of evidence such as a randomized controlled trial or cohort study. You also can en courage colleagues who are conduct ing systematic reviews by thanking them for their efforts. Most impor tantly, you can identify vital ques tions that remain unanswered, for mulate effective EBLIP questions [26], and alert colleagues about these gaps. Whenever possible, you should urge MLA leaders to contribute questions for future MLA research agenda formulation processes. Institutional. Groups of colleagues making joint decisions on important matters can use systematic reviews or other forms of high-level evidence.
J Med Lib Assoc 103(2) April 2015
Comment and opinion
We can identify and discuss gaps in the existing evidence base and alert our colleagues to these gaps. When ever possible, we can encourage MLA leaders to contribute questions for future MLA research agenda formu lation processes. Institutionally, we can create incentives for interested colleagues to join teams conducting systematic reviews through granting research leave. We also can encourage agencies to fund systematic review teams through grants or contracts. Professional association. As a profession, we can encourage the pursuit of systematic reviews by creating incentives through grants, contracts, awards, or other recog nitions for team members. We can encourage MLA leaders to submit w hat they view to be the most important research questions and to vote on others' worthy ques tions. We can encourage published researchers to lend their expertise in gauging the answerability of leaders' research questions. The authors will host a session on this systematic review project during the first section program at MLA '15 in Austin, Texas. We invite you to attend this session to learn more about this innovative project, introduce your own ideas, and raise any questions. Jonathan D. Eldredge, MLS, PhD, AHIP (correspond ing author), jeldr [email protected], As sociate Professor, Biomedical Infor matics Research, Training arid Schol arship, Health Sci ences Library and Informatics Center/Family and Com munity Medicine, 1 University of New Mexico, MSC09 5100, Albuquerque, N M 87131-0001; Marie T. Ascher, M S, AHIP, [email protected], Associate Director, User Services, Health Sciences Library, New York Medical College, 15 Dana Road, Val halla, N Y 10595; Heather N. Holmes, MLIS, AHIP, holmesh@summahealth .org, Clinical lnformationist, Medical Library, Summa Health System, A k ron City & St. Thomas Hospitals, and
J Med Lib Assoc 103(2) April 2015
Instructor, Department of Internal Medicine, Northeastern Ohio Medical University, 55 Arch Street, Suite G-3, Akron, OH 44304
References 1. Eldredge JD, Ascher MT, Holmes HN, Harris MR. The new Medical Library Association research agenda: final results from a three-phase delphi study. J Med Lib Assoc. 2012 Jul;100(3):214-8. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050 .100.3.012. PubM ed PMID: 22879811; PubM ed Central PMCI: 3411260. 2. Edwards LH. Research priorities in school nursing: a delphi process. J School Nurs. 2002 Jun;18(3):157-62. 3. Cohen MZ, Harle M, Woll AM, Despa S, Munsell MF. Delphi survey of nursing research priorities. Oncol N urs Forum. 2004 Sep 17;31(5):1011-8. PubMed PMID: 15378103. 4. Burnette D, Morrow-Howell N, Chen LM. Setting priorities for geron tological social work research: a na tional delphi study. Gerontologist. 2003 Dec;43(6):828-38. Pub Med PMID: 14704382. 5. Guyatt G, Jaeschke R, Prasad K, Cook DJ. Summarizing the evidence. In: Guyatt G, Rennie D, eds. Users' guide to the medical literature: essen tials of evidence-based clinical prac tice. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 2008. pp. 239-64. 6. Porritt K, Gomersall J, Lockwood C. JBI's systematic reviews: study selec tion and critical appraisal. Am J Nurs. 2014 Jun;114(6):47-52. DOI: h ttp ://d x .doi.org/10.1097/01.NAJ.0000450430 .97383.64. PubMed PMID: 24869584. 7. Brownson RC, Chriqui JF, Stamatakis KA. Understanding evi dence-based public health policy. Am J Public Health. 2009 Sep;99(9): 1576-83. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10 .2105/AJPH.2008.156224. Epub 2009 Jul 16. PubMed PMID: 19608941; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2724448. 8. Barends E, Rousseau DM, Briner RB. Evidence-based management: the basic principles. Amsterdam, The Nether lands: Center for Evidence-Based Man agement; 2014. 9. American Psychological Association Presidential Task Force on EvidenceBased Practice. Evidence-based prac tice in psychology. Am Psychology. 2006 May-Jun;61(4):271-85. “ PubMed PMID: 16719673. 10. Gambrill ED. Evidence-based prac tice: sea change or the emperor's new clothes? J Soc Work Educ. 2003 Winter;39(l):3-23.
11. Castello LD, Gil-Gonzalez D, AlvarezDardet Diaz C, Hernandez-Aguado I. The environmental millennium development goal: progress and barriers to its achieve ment. Environ Sci Policy. 2010;13:154-63. 12. Pittaway L, Cope J. Entrepreneurship education: a systematic review of the evidence. Int Small Bus J. 2007 Oct;25(5):479-510. 13. Sundberg T, Taylor-Gooby P. A systematic review of comparative stud ies of attitudes to social policy. Soc Policy Admin. 2013 Aug;47(4):416-33. 14. Petrosino A, Boruch RF, Soydan H, Duggan L, Sanchez-Meca J. Meeting the challenges of evidence-based poli cy: the Campbell Collaboration. Ann Am Acad Pol Soc Sci. 2001;578:14-34. 15. Perrier L, Farrell A, Ayala AP, Lightfoot D, Kenny T, Aaronson E, Allee N, Brigham T, Connor E, Constantinescu T, Muellenbach J, Epstein HAB, Weiss A. Effects of librar ian-provided services in healthcare set tings: a systematic review. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2014 May 28;21:1118-24. Review. PubMed PMID: 24872341. 16. Glynn LA, Sakmar K, Lalla NJ, Berry R, Kim C, Geldenhuys PR, Lawton A, Siebert JL, McClurg C, Clemans-Taylor L, Gadd K, Ettien AL. The value to and impact of health sciences libraries and information ser vices on academic and clinical practice: a systematic review. Presented at: MLA '14, 114th Annual Meeting of the Medical Library Association; Chi cago, IL; 16-21 May 2014. 17. Anderson PF, Bickett S, Doucette J, Herring PR, Kammerer J, Kepsel A, Lyons T, McLachlan S, Tonnison I, Wu L. Tools for building our informa tion future: emerging technologies vi tal to medical libraries. Poster present ed at: MLA '14, 114th Annual Meeting of the Medical Library Association; Chicago, IL; 16-21 May 2014. 18. Anderson PF, Bickett S, Doucette J, Herring PR, Kammerer J, Kepsel A, Lyons T, McLachlan S, Tonnison I, Wu L. Future technological practices: medical librarians' skills and informa tion structures for continued effective ness in a changing environment. Pre sented at: MLA '14, 114th Annual Meeting of the Medical Library Asso ciation; Chicago, IL; 16-21 May 2014. 19. Ascher MT, Eldredge ID, Holmes HN, Harris MR. The MLA research agenda: appraising the best available evidence [Internet]. Proposed guidelines to the MLA Research Sec tion Executive Committee. Working paper. 2012 Nov 2 [cited 2 Dec 2014]. < h ttp ://repository.unm .edu/handle/ 1928/24634>.
101
Comment and opinion
20. Grefsheim SF, Rankin JA, Perry GJ, McKibbon KA. Affirming our commit ment to research: the Medical Library Association's research policy statement: the process and findings. J Med Lib Assoc. 2008 Apr;96(2):114-20. DOI: http ://d x .doi.org/ 10.3163/1536-5050.96.2.114. 21. Medical Library Association. The research imperative: the research pol icy statement of the Medical Library Association [Internet]. Chicago, IL: The Association; 2007 Appendix 4: action plan. Section one [cited 10 Mar 2014], < h ttp :/ / w w w .m lan et.o rg /research / policy/policy-12.htm l>. 22. Eldredge JD, Harris MR, Ascher MT. Defining the Medical Library Associ
102
ation research agenda: methodology and final results from a consensus process. J Med Lib Assoc. 2009 Jul;97(3):178-85. DOI: h ttp ://d x .d o i .org/10.3163/1536-5050.97.3.006. PubMed PMID: 19626143; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2706444. 23. Koufogiannakis D. LB systematic reviews [Internet], [cited 16 May 2014]. < http://lis-systematic-reviews.wikispaces .com /B y+author> . 24. Sampson M. Welcoming systemat ic reviews to the Journal of the Medical Library Association. J Med Lib Assoc. 2014 Jul;102(3):143-5. DOI: h ttp ://d x .doi.org/ 10.3163/1536-5050.102.3.001.
25. Eldredge JD, Hannigan GG. Emerging trends in health sciences librarianship. In: Wood MS, ed. Health sciences librarianship. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield and the Medical Library Association; 2014. pp. 57-83. 26. Booth A. Clear and present ques tions: formulating questions for evi dence based practice. Lib Hi Tech. 2006;24(3):355-68.
Received September 2014; accepted November 2014
J Med Lib Assoc 103(2) April 2015
Copyright of Journal of the Medical Library Association is the property of Medical Library Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
