Scrapbook photo 1
Scrapbook photo 2
Scrapbook photo 3
Scrapbook photo 4
Scrapbook photo 5
Patricia F Anderson
Lives in Ann Arbor, Michigan
3,507 followers|219,545 views


Patricia F Anderson

Discussion  - 
Brief update! First, CHANGE of date for next week's meeting. Most of the regular crowd could not meet on Friday, so we will meet on Tuesday again next week, at 10AM Eastern Time. 

Now, what happened today. Mostly, we gave Tierney an update on recent developments, and reviewed draft search strategies for two subgroups. We also spent a chunk of time talking through the methodology conversation started here:

Part of what we talked about is how to streamline the "tech adoption assessment" process. We talked about taking that list and trying something where you start the review with the tests that are most successful in differentiating appropriate technologies, and then not necessarily continuing unless the evidence is unclear. So, for example:

If a specific tech shows up with lots of activity in grants, clinical trials, and has peer reviewed journals on the topic indexed in MEDLINE, then that is probably one we should know about. So we might start looking in those three places first. Pubmed analysis might come as a subsequent step, followed by some of the other ideas, and then saving Google to assess tech that we are told is important but which isn't having a strong showing in the other areas. I hope that's a fair way to describe the idea. Obviously, we need to test it out and firm this up. 

So, that's the short view for today's meeting! 

I was very tired and muddled, so my notes are sparse. 
Pamela Herring's profile photoAndrea Kepsel's profile photoPatricia Anderson's profile photo
My apologies. I screwed up. Hopefully we can still iron out the document in time! 
Add a comment...

Patricia F Anderson

Discussion  - 
Dagnabbit. I spent hours this morning working on a post about inclusion/exclusion criteria, and it disappeared while I was researching some of the links I wanted to include, and updating one of the Google docs. Color me annoyed. Let's hope I can remember at least some of what I wrote. 

Here is our GDoc with notes on the inclusion/exclusion criteria:

1) "Inclusion/exclusion criteria" (in/ex crit) does not mean in our team what it does in a typical systematic review. Why? Because our methodology has us selecting new technologies, not articles. Therefore, we need to select very different types of criteria.

2) At this point in time, we are evolving some of the explicit criteria, but we may not be able to identify all of them until we have worked through this with one or two groups and observed how and where  the utilitarian dividing lines tend to appear. 

3) In/ex crib usually drive the search limits and inform the search strategy formation. I suspect this may be less true for our question than for others because of the nature of the question and because our methodology, while both systematic and a review, is not a true systematic review (SR). 

4) For standard search limits, most SRs commonly use limits on language, age groups, and human/animal. Many also limit to anatomical area, specific methodologies commonly used in the research base for that question, and types of analysis similarly common in that research base. These are less likely to be relevant for our teams, and (I suspect) may be relevant to one subgroup and not another. 

Here is an illustration. Since our goal is to identify technologies relevant to medical librarians, many of them may not actually be relevant in clinical use. That means that a limit of "human" would exclude many of the technologies that librarians actually use. However, the subgroup on e-tech in the human body should absolutely use a limit of human. If we apply a limit of human to the base search, we drastically limit the options for the other subgroups.

On the flip side, I would think that by the time any emerging technology has become relevant to medical librarians, it will have been published in English. So perhaps a language limit would make sense at the level of the base search. Similarly, while we haven't yet tested the major journal filters, it would be expected that emerging tech ripe for adoption would be appearing in major journals also, so perhaps we want to test those filters as a possible way to streamline our work. Or maybe not? It might limit things too much.  

Does that make sense to anyone else? Can you think of other similar limits we should or shouldn't use with the base search? Or ones we should be testing prior to implementing? 

I've been thinking that each subgroup should identify the limits they feel are appropriate for their area. Once we identify the in/ex criteria for each group, we can then identify the overlap (common elements) and whether or not to use all or none or some of those in the basic search. Obviously, limits used in the base search would not need to be repeated in the subgroup searches. 

Please react, respond, brainstorm, add questions & thoughts, and poke around in the Google Doc. MANY THANKS! 
METHODOLOGY: Inclusion/Exclusion/Selection CriteriaSearch strategies & process (SHORT) Define question (done) Generate topic list for evaluation (done) Select databases (done) Pubmed Research quantity Research timespan Clinical relevance (Human or not) NLM Locator (Journal Titles) Clinical Trials Guidelines Grants Define inclusion / exclusion cr
Add a comment...

Patricia F Anderson

Discussion  - 
Brief notes. I'm still working on the notes from last week, but I've been sick all week so running behind. What YOU can all do for now is to take the original emerging technologies search strategy and tinker with it. It wasn't designed by a librarian, so we need to reach a consensus about what works and what doesn't for achieving the goals of the search. Questions that have arisen include: MESH terms or not? If MESH terms, do they need to be limited or focused? TIAB or TI (we are leaning toward TI only for emerging tech part of the searches, and TIAB for our special topics). See what you think. Take the original search, put it in, and then play with it to make it better. :) Enter your strategies, questions, ideas in the Google Doc. THANKS!
Base EmTech Search Strategy - Working DocumentOriginal Google Doc: Varela-Lemaa L, Punal-Riobóoa J, Accióna BC, Ruano-Ravinaa A, López-Garcíaa M. Making processes reliable: A Validated PUBMED search strategy for identifying new or emerging technol
Skye Bickett's profile photoPatricia Anderson's profile photo
I'm still supposed to be setting up assigned tasks, and not making much headway with it. :( 
Add a comment...

Patricia F Anderson

Shared publicly  - 
I bought it! And the other one, of the TARDIS skating along a Moebius strip. :) 
Add a comment...
And folk are complaining about this, but me, I'm excited about connecting corporate and patients together to improve healthcare 
We're excited to announce a new Parkinson's Community collaboration with Genentech! The goal of this initiative will be to identify new drug targets and new therapies by analyzing whole genome sequence data from more than 3,000 individuals in the 23andMe Parkinson's Community. You can read more here:
Mountain View, Calif. – January 6, 2015 – 23andMe, Inc., the leading personal genetics company, today announced an agreement with Genentech, a member of the Roche Group (SIX: RO, ROG; OTCQX: RHHBY), to generate whole genome sequencing data for approximately 3000 people in 23andMe's Parkinson's ...
View original post
Add a comment...
I've been brainstorming our adoptions levels. We had years and type of librarian, but I think we might want to possibly ID some relevant professional behaviors as part of our mapping: collection support, reference support, professional practice, etc. 
Add a comment...
Here is the original version of what we had rough drafted as our "inclusion/exclusion criteria" a.k.a. adoption curve mapping components. Please note, we have since removed some of the less distinguishing criteria in order to simplify our process. 

 - Google Scholar

-Google #
-GScholar #  
-[TIAB] #

 - Newest article date
 - Oldest article date
 - Length of span (Years)
 - Shape of span (opt)
 - "Systematic Review articles (Clinical Queries)"

 - Exist
 - #
 - Indexed Years (of oldest)
 - "Impact factor"

 - "Bench or Tech"
 - Animal Human

Patricia F Anderson's profile photo
Hoping folk will comment here with questions, clarifications, thoughts, etc. :) 
Add a comment...

Patricia F Anderson

Discussion  - 
Right now, we've talked about presenting the team's project-related activities as having three phases. Right now, the phases look roughly like this.

Phase One (Year One): 
1. Define question (done, Phase 1)
2. Generate topic list for evaluation (done, Phase 1) 
3. Cluster topics, define subgroups (done, Phase 1)

Phase Two (Year Two): 
4. Select databases (done, Phase 2)
5. Define inclusion / exclusion criteria, assessment criteria for target topics. Preliminary tests of criteria. (rough draft done, Phase 2)

Phase Three (Year Three): 
6. Perform searches, harvest results [PENDING, Phase 3]
7. Assess results, write final report [PENDING, Phase 3] 

Methodology notes:

Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria Rough Draft & Notes
Pamela Herring's profile photoSkye Bickett's profile photo
This looks great! Sorry I've been MIA. I've been teaching (yay), so haven't been able to make meetings. Should be done next week. Trying to keep up with the notes from the meetings.
Add a comment...
Thank you all for your patience. I'm back from the funeral.

I significantly updated our group bibliography as a resource for CVs, resumes, and such. There are a few that need info from other folk (+Scott McLachlan  especially!).

I think we are ready to finalize the basic search strategy, and then post it here for public commentary. It would be helpful to talk through it again, and take notes on the decisions we are making and why, so that we can articulate them and justify them to our peers (who will surely question many of the same things we questioned!). 

We need to identify inclusion / exclusion criteria, and those will be different for each of the groups. Once we identify the in/ex criteria for each group, we can then identify the overlap (common elements) and whether or not to use all or none or some of those in the basic search. I'll make a separate post on that for brainstorming. 
Joanne Doucette's profile photoPatricia F Anderson's profile photo
Thanks, Joanne. :) 
Add a comment...
  #WIAD was so incredible at #a2wiad Absolutely FANTASTIC
World Information Architecture Day (@WorldIADay) in Ann Arbor, United States, on February 21, 2015 | #WIAD |
Add a comment...

Patricia F Anderson

Shared publicly  - 
Rosefire Rising :) For real. 
Fibrils Flower on The Sun
When does The Sun look like a flower?
In a specific color of red light emitted by hydrogen, as featured here, some regions of the solar chromosphere may resemble a rose. The color-inverted image was taken in October 2014 and shows active solar region 2177. The petals dominating the frame are actually magnetically confined tubes of hot plasma called fibrils, some of which extend longer than the diameter of the Earth.

In the central region many of these fibrils are seen end-on, while the surrounding regions are typically populated with curved fibrils. When seen over the Sun's edge, these huge plasma tubes are called spicules, and when they occur in passive regions they are termed mottles. Sunspot region 2177 survived for several more days before the complex and tumultuous magnetic field poking through the Sun's surface evolved yet again.

Credit & Copyright: Big Bear Solar Obs., NJIT, Alan Friedman (Averted Imagination)
Big Bear Solar Observatory:

+Astronomy Picture of the Day (APoD) 

#NASA   #Space   #Astronomy   #Sun   #Solar   #Science #Plasma #Hydrogen #Sunspot #Magnetic #Field   #Spicules #Fibrils #Telescope   #Observatory #Star #APoD
6 comments on original post
Add a comment...
MEETING 150116: The Google Hangout crashed towards the end and we LOST all the notes and chat! Grrrr. Joanne was taking notes outside, and will get those to us later. Briefly, we looked at rough draft search strategies from two of the teams, which was very instructive. We also looked at the base "validated" search strategy from the other article, and found several places where they could have benefited from a librarian and where tweaking the search strategy they used results in more results that are on topic. So, the focus for this coming week is to have several of us play with that base search strategy, tweak it, test it, revise it, and share our notes in a Google doc, to try to make it more effective. I'll be posting something separately on that. More later! 
Add a comment...
Have her in circles
3,507 people
Michael Martin's profile photo
Abdullah Almutairi's profile photo
Rosie Perez's profile photo
daud faraizy's profile photo
Jennifer Shine Dyer's profile photo
Steven V. Calhoun's profile photo
Esminee Rase's profile photo
Aldo Morales's profile photo
Space Time's profile photo
Emerging Technologies Librarian
Basic Information
Other names
Perplexity Peccable (SL)
ETechLib (E=Emerging or E=Eccentric)
I am a single mom of a special needs kid, emerging technologies librarian, specialist in evidence based dentistry, author of a three volume reference book on search engines and search strategies for health, active in health in virtual worlds, with a strong interest in ehealth, informatics, and social/semantic tech.
Map of the places this user has livedMap of the places this user has livedMap of the places this user has lived
Ann Arbor, Michigan
Iowa - Chicago