Pediatric Residents and Interns in an Italian Hospital Perform Improved Bibliographic Searches when Assisted by a Biomedical Librarian
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A Review of: Gardois, P., Calabrese, R., Colombi, N., Lingua, C., Longo, F., Villanacci, M., Miniero, R., & Piga, A. (2011). Effectiveness of bibliographic searches performed by paediatric residents and interns assisted by librarian. A randomised controlled trial. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 28(4), 273-284. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-1842.2011.00957.x Objective – To establish whether the assistance of an experienced biomedical librarian delivers an improvement in the searching of bibliographic databases as performed by medical residents and interns. Design – Randomized controlled trial. Setting – The pediatrics department of a large Italian teaching hospital. Subjects – 18 pediatric residents and interns. Methods – 23 residents and interns from the pediatrics department of a large Italian teaching hospital were invited to participate in this study, of which 18 agreed. Subjects were then randomized into two groups and asked to spend between 30 and 90 minutes searching bibliographic databases for evidence to answer a real-life clinical question which was randomly allocated to them. Each member of the intervention group was provided with an experienced biomedical librarian to provide assistance throughout the search session. The control group received no assistance. The outcome of the search was then measured using an assessment tool adapted for the purpose of this study from the Fresno test of competence in evidence based medicine. This adapted assessment tool rated the “global success” of the search and included criteria such as appropriate question formulation, number of PICO terms translated into search terms, use of Boolean logic, use of subject headings, use of filters, use of limits, and the percentage of citations retrieved that matched a gold standard set of citations found in a prior search by two librarians (who were not involved in assisting the subjects) together with an expert clinician. Main Results – The intervention group scored a median average of 73.6 points out of a possible 100, compared with the control group which scored 50.4. The difference of 23.2 points in favour of the librarian assisted group was a statistically significant result (p value = 0.013) with a 95% confidence interval of between 4.8 and 33.2. Conclusion – This study presents credible evidence that assistance provided by an experienced biomedical librarian improves the quality of the bibliographic database searches performed by residents and interns using real-life clinical scenarios.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".