Tag Archives: ebhc

Standards and Services and PRISMA, Oh My! Systematic Reviews at MLAnet16, Day One

First posted at the MLAnet16 blog: http://www.mlanet.org/blog/standards-and-services-and-prisma,-oh-my!-systematic-reviews-at-mlanet16,-day-one

Toronto Scenery

Wow, wow, wow! What an AMAZING day! I’m at the Medical Library Association Annual Meeting, and trying to get to as many of the systematic review events as I can. Today is the first full day of the conference, and it was a jackpot — PRISMA for searches, a session on EBM/EBHC training, and a session on systematic review services. Lots of posters, too, but I haven’t had a chance to go look at those yet.

I tweeted a screenshot of the special session on systematic reviews this afternoon.

Dean Giustini asked me what’s new, so let me get right to that.


I saw an event in the program, something about PRISMA standards, so I thought I’d poke my head in. When I poked my head back out later, I could not stop talking about it. The gist of it is that PRISMA, whom most medical librarians and journal editors know of as providing standards and guidelines for how systematic review data should be reported, are branching out. Me, I’ve been watching with excitement the various PRISMA extensions that have been being added recently. Thsee include standards for reporting protocols, meta-analyses, patient data, abstracts, and more. Well, it turns out there is a pretty substantial team working on developing PRISMA guidelines for reporting search strategies. This is pretty exciting for me! And somehow, I had missed it until today. The group today was opening the results from the original team to a broader audience and asking for reactions. They had come up with 123 guidelines, which they narrowed down to 53, and then we broke into four subgroups (search strategy, grey literature, documenting results, database characteristics) brainstorming about how to narrow down even further, into truly actionable points. I tell you, this is a group to watch.

Some of my favorite lines:

“I did this review according to PRISMA standards.” “You can’t. PRISMA is a ‘reporting’ standard, not a ‘doing.'” (Margaret Foster)

“The faculty are asking individual students to do something that is essentially a team sport.” (Ana Patricia Ayala)

“Cochrane says, ‘You will not limit by language.’ PRISMA says, ‘You will report any limits.'” (Margaret Sampson)

Here is just one of the flip boards from the conversation to whet the appetite of the systematic review methods nerds.

Priorities for Systematic Review Search Strategy Reporting


Later in the day, there was a complete session devoted to systematic review services in medical libraries. Yes, this is the same one from the tweet earlier in this post. I was dashing in late from the poster session, so I missed the beginning of the presentation on training needs by Catherine Boden and Hellsten. I was disappointed, because they were citing many wonderful articles I wanted to look into later. I’m sure glad the slides are in the online MLA system, because I’ll have to go find them! Being late also means I didn’t get any photos from their talk. The most provocative concept I pulled from their talk was the idea that systematic reviews are actually “a constellation of related methods rather than a single methodology.” So elegantly put, and so true. It’s a helpful way to reframe how we think about what we do, and is supported by the same drive that is motivating the various PRISMA extensions mentioned above.

MLAnet16 Systematic Review Services

Sarah Vistinini presented for her team on scoping reviews, their similarities to and differences from systematic reviews, and the value of being included in the ENTIRE process (which she cleverly described as giving a “better appreciation of all the moving parts.”). Sarah showed some very cool evidence mapping (see pic above), dot prioritization, and more. There were glowing recommendations of the 2005 Arksey and O’Malley article on scoping review methodologies and a wonderful link to all the references: bit.ly/visin-2016.

Kate Krause presented for a team primarily from the Texas Medical Center Library about their efforts to launch a new systematic review service, and the resulting “opportunities” (wink, wink, nudge, nudge, we all know what THAT means). The moderator described their presentation as a “collective therapy session,” which generated considerable amusement among the audience. The most important parts of her talk were, of course, the solutions! They require systematic review requests to come through an online request form, which gives them solid statistics and allows them to manage workflow better. They are using a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with faculty to facilitate a discussion of the duties, timeline, and expectations. They are providing different levels of service, with some interesting requirements for the highest level of service (like, if I understood correctly, mandatory five face-to-face meetings with the project lead). One curious nugget for which they are seeking the citation was heard at a prior MLA meeting — the more face-to-face meetings you have with a systematic review researcher, the more likely they are to actually publish on the project. They have a wonderful-sounding information packet given to new SR researchers, but I didn’t catch everything in it. I did catch bits (Cochrane timeline? list of other review types?) that make me want to know more!

MLAnet16 Systematic Review Services

Lynn Kysh and Robert E. Johnson presented a talk with the awesome title: “Blinded Ambition, misperceptions & misconceptions of systematic reviews.” They discussed some of the challenges to co-authorship and publication being assumed as an automatic good for librarians working on systematic review teams. Lynn described constraints to completing publication, and described times when librarians there removed their name from articles being submitted for publication because of methodological concerns. Very very interesting content. Well, and then there were the forest plot kittenz.

Last but not least, Maylene Kefeng Qiu represented a team that did the bulk of the work for a rapid review in … three weeks. Intense! Much of the challenge centered around timing, expertise available, staffing, workflow, and management coordination. The librarians on this team actually did the critical appraisal of the articles before giving the final dataset to the faculty member writing the review. My favorite line from her talk was, “Stick to your inclusion/exclusion criteria.” Their slide deck had so many wonderful images illustrating parallels and differences between systematic reviews and rapid reviews. I hope it’s ok if I share just one.

MLAnet16 Systematic Review Services

A Tack Board of Tags (HOTW July 19, 2015)

There have been some fantastic conversations on Twitter this week, on a huge diversity of topics and organized around some intriguing hashtags. I was personally involved with the Summit for the Mayo Clinic Center for Social Media (#MCCSM) and the local systematic review training course (UMTHLSysRev). It was a series of happy coincidences that led me to the events Astrobiology Science Conference 2015 (#AbSciCon); Inspirefest 2015, the future of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics with new perspectives on innovation, leadership and success (#inspirefest2015); and International Association for Suicide Prevention (#IASP2015). I was surprised to find two very relevant Twitter chats that were new to me: hereditary cancer chat (#hcchat) and the Internet of Things chat (#IoTchat). Last but far from least, the nursing-inspired #WhyWeDoResearch tag is a very motiving and inspiring meme to explore. I’ll put just a few examples of each below, hoping to intrigue you enough to go look at these yourself.

Mayo Clinic Center for Social Media | #MCCSM (#mccsm archive)

Systematic Reviews Workshop: Opportunities for Librarians |
#umthlsysrev (#umthlsysrev archive)

Astrobiology Science Conference 2015 | #AbSciCon

Inspirefest | #inspirefest2015

28th World Congress of the International Association for Suicide Prevention, Montreal, 2015 | #IASP2015 (#IASP2015 archive)

Hereditary Cancer Chat #HCchat
(#HCchat archive)

#IoTChat: Internet of Things Twittersphere Chats Evolve | #IoTchat

Why We Do Research Campaign (Weebly sites blocked in UM hospitals) [Campaign video 1; campaign video 2] | #WhyWeDoResearch (#WhyWeDoResearch archive)

What’s New, What’s Hot: My Favorite Posters from #MLAnet15

Part 3 of a series of blogposts I wrote for the recent Annual Meeting of the Medical Library Association.

I had a particular slant, where I was looking for new technology posters, emerging and emergent innovations, but then I was so delighted with the richness of systematic review research being presented, that there is a lot of that, too. The chosen few ran from A to Z, with apps, bioinformatics, data visualization, games, Google Glass in surgery, new tech to save money with ILL operations, social media, Youtube, zombies, and even PEOPLE. What is it with medical librarians and zombies? Hunh. Surely there are other gory engaging popular medical monsters? Anyway, here are some of my favorite posters from MLA’s Annual Meeting. There were so many more which I loved and tweeted, but I just can’t share them all here today. I’ll try to put them in a Storify when I get back home. Meanwhile, look these up online or in the app for more details. By the way, they started to get the audio up, so you can use the app to listen to many of the presenters talk about their poster.

Poster 14:

Poster 28:

Poster 30:

Poster 38:

Poster 40 (and that should read “Twitter”, not “Titter”):

Poster 43:

Poster 54:

Poster 65:

Poster 83:

Poster 100:

Poster 121:

Poster 125:

Poster 130:

Poster 157:

Poster 202:

Poster 224:

Poster 225:

Poster 228:

Poster 238:

Poster 243:

Systematic Reviews 101


This morning in the Emergent Research Series, my colleagues Whitney Townsend and Mark MacEachern presented to a mix of mostly faculty and other librarians about how medical librarians use the systematic review methodology. They did a brilliant job! Very nicely structured, great sources and examples, excellent Q&A session afterwards. They had planned for some activities, but it ended up there wasn’t time. I’d like to know more about what they had planned!

I was one of the folk livetweeting. According to my Twitter metrics, this was a popular topic. I assembled a Storify from the Tweets and related content. I thought it would be of interest to people here.

Storify: PF Anderson: Systematic Reviews 101: https://storify.com/pfanderson/systematic-reviews-101

ECigs: ETech Meets Public Health Again (Part Two)

[For information on why I’ve been missing-in-action here, please see this post at my personal blog: http://mhistoire.wordpress.com/2013/05/25/breathing-in-memory-of-rose-ann-broussard-cooper-anderson/ I expect to be back in business next week.]

So, in Part One, the eCig conversation was largely framed through health and legislative perspectives, with concerns hooked substantially on potential use by minors and young adults. In part two, I want to dig a little deeper into some of these issues, and spin off in new directions, mostly workplace use, more about minors, and issues of DIY and unintended uses of e-cigs.

I keep saying how complicated is the issue of electronic cigarettes. This tweet illustrates part of that.

The American Cancer Society (ACS) is one of the organizations most strongly advising caution with respect to e-cigs, and perceived as “the opposition” by the e-cig and vaping communities. Obviously, given that at least one person at their event was using an e-cig, this is not a topic with complete consensus, but it is also close enough to consensus to raise eyebrows and warrant comment. The issues are further complicated by the ACS accepting donations from e-cig manufacturers.

Similarly, despite the prolific and prominent vitriol from the vaping community regarding any suggestion that e-cigs warrant further research or concern or caution, there are elements of that community willing to work with the government and professional medical organizations on exactly those areas.

Growing Electronic Cigarette Manufacturer “Welcomes” FDA’s “Reasonable Regulation” Of Category:

Given that e-cigs are an emerging technological alternative to the issue of smoking and that smoking in public spaces and the workplace has been a major issue over the past few decades, it’s no real surprise that there are guidelines and suggestions being created to advise employers about best practices for managing e-cigs in the workplace. Given that my own campus, University of Michigan, only recently went smoke-free (July 1, 2011), and that several of my friends are still struggling to make the switch, I expect that this is an issue worthy of local attention.

What employers need to know about electronic cigarettes? Fact Sheet, September 2011. (pdf)
Main points:
Quick Facts About E-Cigarettes
• Not an FDA-approved tobacco cessation device.
• Contain nicotine and detectable levels of known carcinogens and toxic chemicals.
• Look very similar to regular cigarettes (especially from a distance).
• Manufactured using inconsistent or non-existent quality control processes.
Actions for Employers
• Determine whether the use of e-cigarettes is allowed in their jurisdictions, including in the workplace.
• Understand whether unions, works councils, or other laws can raise barriers to implementing workplace
policies regulating e-cigarettes.
• Stay informed on any new laws and emerging scientific evidence regarding e-cigarettes.

Please note the date on those tips, and that they haven’t been updated, although the conversation is far from over!

Sullum, Jacob. Boston Bans E-Cigarettes in Workplaces, Just Because. Dec. 2, 2011 http://reason.com/blog/2011/12/02/boston-bans-e-cigarettes-in-workplaces-f

American Society for Quality: Should e-Cigarettes Be Allowed in the Workplace? April 15, 2013 http://asq.org/qualitynews/qnt/execute/displaySetup?newsID=15801

One marketing firm addressed a sort of a case study of why one life insurance firm in Britain banned e-cigs at work, arguing against each of the points.

Should electric cigarettes be allowed in the workplace http://www.slideshare.net/jackwillis2005/ppt-should-e-cigarettes-be-allowed-in-the-workplace

Here are a couple links with pro and con information about the Standard Life policy decision. A major point seems to be the psychology of e-cig use, that because of their resemblance to real cigarettes they give the message that smoking is a good thing or at least permissible. I am not aware of any research into this assumption, although there is substantial evidence on the related concept of candy cigarettes.

The Scotsman: Standard Life bans employees from smoking electronic cigarettes at work (2012): http://www.scotsman.com/the-scotsman/health/standard-life-bans-employees-from-smoking-electronic-cigarettes-at-work-1-2124568

Daily Mail: Safety fears over electronic cigarettes because they are ‘unclean’ and unregulated: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2129550/Safety-fears-electronic-cigarettes-unclean-unregulated.html

And a couple pieces about the psychological impact candy cigarettes. Consider, though, that the research on candy cigarettes is looking explicitly at the impact on children, not adults.

Klein JD, Forehand B, Oliveri J, Patterson CJ, Kupersmidt JB, Strecher V. Candy cigarettes: do they encourage children’s smoking? Pediatrics. 1992 Jan;89(1):27-31. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1728016

Klein JD, Clair SS. Do candy cigarettes encourage young people to smoke? BMJ. 2000 Aug 5;321(7257):362-5. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10926600

Klein JD, Thomas RK, Sutter EJ. History of childhood candy cigarette use is associated with tobacco smoking by adults. Prev Med. 2007 Jul;45(1):26-30. Epub 2007 Apr 24. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17532370

Back to the American Cancer Society, and the issue of minors having access to e-cigs.

Anti-THR Lies and related topics: Who leads the fight against banning e-cigarette sales to minors? Guess again: it is the American Cancer Society: http://antithrlies.com/2013/04/25/who-leads-the-fight-against-banning-e-cigarette-sales-to-minors/

As with everything surrounding the e-cig controversies, it’s never straightforward, and there are always multiple views with value. This tweet was in response to my Part One blogpost on e-cigs.

The links highlight the work of Dr. Michael Siegel, Professor, Department of Community Health Sciences, Boston University School of Public Health.

Dr. Siegel:
“I do not question the need to balance the benefits of enhancing smoking cessation among adult smokers with the costs of youth beginning to use this nicotine-containing product. But show me at least one youth using the product before you call for a ban. This recommendation makes a mockery out of the idea of science-based or evidence-based policy making in tobacco control.”
The Rest of the Story: Tobacco News Analysis and Commentary: American Legacy Foundation Sounds Alarm About Electronic Cigarette Use Among Young People, Calling for a Ban on Flavored E-Cigarettes, But Fails to Document a Single Youth Using These Products http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2013/04/american-legacy-foundation-sounds-alarm.html

In response to:

““While most candy-flavors – such as chocolate, vanilla and peach – were banned in 2009 from cigarettes, flavored tobacco products like cigars, hookah, snus and e-cigarettes persist in more than 45 flavors and are still legally on the market,” said Andrea Villanti, PhD, MPH, CHES, Research Investigator for Legacy. “These products can be just as appealing to young people as flavored cigarettes, offering a product appearing to be more like candy to those most at-risk of becoming lifelong tobacco users,” she added.”
FDA Should Extend Ban on Flavors to Other Products to Protect Young People, April 3, 2013 http://legacyforhealth.org/newsroom/press-releases/flavored-tobacco-continues-to-play-a-role-in-tobacco-use-among-young-adults

“Overall, 18.5% of tobacco users report using flavored products, and dual use of menthol and flavored product use ranged from 1% (nicotine products) to 72% (chewing tobacco). In a multivariable model controlling for menthol use, younger adults were more likely to use flavored tobacco products (OR=1.89, 95% CI=1.14, 3.11), and those with a high school education had decreased use of flavored products (OR=0.56; 95% CI=0.32, 0.97). Differences in use may be due to the continued targeted advertising of flavored products to young adults and minorities. Those most likely to use flavored products are also those most at risk of developing established tobacco-use patterns that persist through their lifetime.”
Villanti AC, Richardson A, Vallone DM, Rath JM. Flavored Tobacco Product Use Among U.S. Young Adults. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 44(4):388-391, April 2013 http://www.ajpmonline.org/article/S0749-3797(12)00939-7/abstract

Dr. Siegel:
“But I don’t think most anti-smoking groups or advocates care about the actual evidence. They’ve already made up their minds. Vaping looks too much like smoking. So forget about the fact that not a single nonsmoking youth could be found who has even tried the product. The advocates must continue to follow the party line and warn about the danger of electronic cigarettes as a gateway to nicotine addiction. Never mind that the gateway just doesn’t exist.”
The Rest of the Story: Tobacco News Analysis and Commentary: New Study on Electronic Cigarette Use Among Youth Fails to Find a Single Nonsmoking Youth Who Has Even Tried an Electronic Cigarette: http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2013/01/new-study-on-electronic-cigarette-use.html

In response to:

“E-cigarettes are battery-powered devices that look like cigarettes and deliver a nicotine vapor to the user. They are widely advertised as technologically advanced and healthier alternatives to tobacco cigarettes using youth-relevant appeals such as celebrity endorsements, trendy/fashionable imagery, and fruit, candy, and alcohol flavors [2], [3]. E-cigarettes are widely available online and in shopping mall kiosks, which may result in a disproportionate reach to teens, who spend much of their free time online and in shopping malls.”
Grana, Rachel A. Electronic Cigarettes: A New Nicotine Gateway? Journal of Adolescent Health 52(2):135-136, February 2013.
[NOTE: Check out the bibliography]

“Only two participants (< 1%) had previously tried e-cigarettes. Among those who had not tried e-cigarettes, most (67%) had heard of them. Awareness was higher among older and non-Hispanic adolescents. Nearly 1 in 5 (18%) participants were willing to try either a plain or flavored e-cigarette, but willingness to try plain versus flavored varieties did not differ. Smokers were more willing to try any e-cigarette than nonsmokers (74% vs. 13%; OR 10.25, 95% CI 2.88, 36.46). Nonsmokers who had more negative beliefs about the typical smoker were less willing to try e-cigarettes (OR .58, 95% CI .43, .79)."
Pepper JK , Reiter PL , McRee A-L , Cameron LD , Gilkey MB , Brewer NT . Adolescent males' awareness of and willingness to try electronic cigarettes. J Adolesc Health . 2013;52:144–150. http://www.jahonline.org/article/S1054-139X(12)00409-0/abstract

Wow. All smart people, working in or from the peer-reviewed literature, but with varying interpretations. For more information about flavors in e-cigs, check out these e-cig review and information sites.

Vapor Rater: http://www.vaporrater.com
Vapour Trails: http://www.vapourtrails.tv

The first thing I saw that actually sparked a moment of interest in e-cigs for me personally was the idea that you can make your own at home. I’m not a smoker, but I’m also not much of a drinker. I am, however, addicted to canning, pickling, and otherwise preserving produce and home goods. I go so far as to even make my own fruit shrubs as beverage mixes for my friends who do drink, even though I don’t partake. If you could convince me that e-cigs were safe and healthy and all that, you could tempt me to want to learn how to mix the vaping liquid for my friends, even if I don’t use it myself.

RTS Vapes: Lab Safety when Mixing Liquid Nicotine: http://rtsvapes.blogspot.com/2012/09/lab-safety-when-mixing-liquid-nicotine.html

A brief detour down memory lane. When I was in high school I remember vividly a change in what and who was “cool” between sophomore and junior years. During freshman and sophomore years, the cool kids, the influencers, were those who snuck off into corners to make out and have sex. In junior and senior years it was no longer sex but drugs that was cool, and a lot of the smartest kids in school adopted drugs, creating and using intellect, technology, and creativity to explore this “counter-culture” area. In chemistry class, one of the top students used the chem lab to gold-plate a baby marijuana leaf into a pickle fork. A pair of National Merit Scholars broke into the high school academic system to do a statistical analysis comparing the IQs of known street drug users compared to street drug ‘virgins’ among the student population, with the drug users ‘proven’ to have the highest IQs. There was a perception that drugs weren’t just cool, but smart. I don’t know, but it would not surprise me to find that high school students today are also inquisitive and creative with exploring new technologies that allow them to buck the status quo. It is with that in mind that I read these next tweets.

Portable Vaporizer – Marijuana Pot Herbal Portable Vaporizers http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vs6AjEXcOok

For the record, I am a supporter of the legalization of marijuana, and it makes sense that if e-cigs are safer to want to extend those health benefits to persons who smoke anything recreationally. I’m not opposed to e-cigs, either, but do think there are benefits to information, education, and appropriate legislation. There are really two main questions. One, this is a new technology, and we don’t know that much about it. E-cigs were invented in 2004, and there simply hasn’t been time to fully research the technical, physical, and psychological health impacts of use. That is a problem for most new and emerging technologies, and we don’t have a solution for that at this point. The other main question is really about minors. So, the argument from Dr. Siegel is that youth don’t use e-cigs. Are you sure?

Evidence-based? What’s the GRADE?

GRADE Working Group

Personally, I have a love/hate relationship with healthcare’s dependence on grading systems, kitemarks, seals of approval, etcetera, especially in the realm of websites and information for patients or general health literacy. It is rather a different matter when it comes to information for clinicians and healthcare providers (HCPs). There, we typically depend on the peer-review process to give clinicians confidence in the information on which they base their clinical decisions for patient care. Retraction Watch and others have made it clear that simply being published is no longer (if it ever was) an assurance of quality and dependability of healthcare information. As long as I’ve been working as a medical librarian, I’ve been hearing from med school faculty that their students don’t do the best job of critically appraising the medical literature. I suspect this is something that medical faculty have said for many generations, and that it is nothing new. Still, it is welcome to find tools and training to help improve awareness of the possible weaknesses of the literature and how to assess quality.

During some recent excellent and thought provoking conversations on the Evidence-Based Health list, GRADE was brought up yet again by Per Olav Vandvik. There have been several conversations about GRADE in this group, but I thought perhaps some of the readers of this blog might not be aware of it yet. Here’s a brief intro.

GRADE stands for “Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation.” GRADE Working Group is the managing organization. I like their back history: “The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (short GRADE) Working Group began in the year 2000 as an informal collaboration of people with an interest in addressing the shortcomings of present grading systems in health care.”

GRADE Working Group: http://www.gradeworkinggroup.org/index.htm

Playlist of Presentations on GRADE by the American Thoracic Society:

Free software to support the GRADE process.

Cochrane: RevMan: GRADEpro: http://ims.cochrane.org/revman/gradepro

UpToDate GRADE Tutorial: http://www.uptodate.com/home/grading-tutorial

20-part article series in Journal of Clinical Epidemiology explaining GRADE. These articles focus on:
– Rating the quality of evidence
– Summarizing the evidence
– Diagnostic tests
– Making recommendations
– GRADE and observational studies

GRADE guidelines – best practices using the GRADE framework: http://www.gradeworkinggroup.org/publications/JCE_series.htm

New York Academy of Medicine is having a training session on GRADE this coming August. You can find more information here.

Teaching Evidence Assimilation for Collaborative Healthcare: http://www.nyam.org/fellows-members/ebhc/
PDF on GRADE section of the course: http://www.nyam.org/fellows-members/docs/2013-More-Information-on-Level-2-GRADE.pdf

Hashtags of the Week (HOTW): Comparative Effectiveness Research (Week of January 21, 2013)

First posted at THL Blog http://wp.me/p1v84h-125

What is Comparative Effectiveness Research?
What is Comparative Effectiveness Research?: http://effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/index.cfm/what-is-comparative-effectiveness-research1/

I’ve been tracking the Comparative Effectiveness Research hashtag in Twitter for a while. You will have seen tweets from that stream here earlier in this HOTW series of post. The hashtag is #CER, by the way, but unfortunately it is used for many other topics as well — Carbon Emissions Reduction, Corporate Entrepreneurship Responsibility, food conversations in Turkish, and some sort of technology gadget topic that I haven’t figured out. Ah.

Luckily, the #CER tag when used in the health context has a number of other hashtags with which it is often associated. #eGEMS, #PCOR, #PCORI, and #QI are the most common used companion hashtags, but there are others as well.

#eGEMS = Generating Evidence and Methods to improve patient outcomes

#PCOR = Patient-Centered Outcomes Research

#PCORI = Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute

#QI = Quality Improvement (also “Quite Interesting”)

One of the things that makes it easier to track the health side of the #CER tag is that the CER community has volunteers (National Pharmaceutical Council) who find the stream so valuable they curate, collate, and archive the most relevant tweets from each week, along with brief comments on the high points from each week.

That JAMA article they mentioned? Was actually a 2009 classic from NEJM.

But there was a JAMA article in the collection from the previous week. And an impressive one, too!

Yesterday, our team here at the Taubman Health Sciences Library had a journal club to talk about a classic article on #CER.

That conversation had us looking beyond the issues of CER as a research methodology, and into the foundation of why and how the methodology developed, the purposes it is designed to serve, when and why to choose CER over another methodology such as systematic reviews, the implications of CER for the EVidence-Based Healthcare movement, the strengths and weaknesses of CER compared to other methodologies, and much more. It was a very valuable and interesting hour well spent.

Of course, we aren’t the only ones asking these types of questions about #CER — The FDA, the New York Times, among others.

Thus, you see me inspired today to dig into the #CER stream and explore more about what is there. One very timely notice is the webinar on Monday, next week.

And an upcoming conference at UCSF on using CER to make healthcare more relevant.

One of my colleagues also mentioned an upcoming campus event focusing on chronic diseases, so this was interesting and relevant to that.

The #CER stream seems to contain a regular number of high quality research articles. Definitely worth exploring.