Queensland government agency libraries review : literature review

Dr Gillian Hallam is project leader for the Queensland Government Agency Libraries Review. As an initial step in the project, a literature review was commissioned to guide the research activities and inform the development of options for potential future service delivery models for the Government agency libraries. The review presents an environmental scan and review of the professional and academic literature to consider a range of current perspectives on library and information services. Significant in this review is the focus on the specific issues and challenges impacting on contemporary government libraries and their staff. The review incorporates four key areas: current directions in government administration; trends in government library services; issues in contemporary special libraries; and the skills and competencies of special librarians. Rather than representing an exhaustive review, the research has primarily centred on recent journal articles, conference papers, reports and web resources. Commentary prepared by national and international library associations has also played a role informing this review, as does the relevant State and Federal government documentation and reporting.

Commonwealth government agency libraries review: Literature review

Ongoing financial, administrative, and technological changes present significant challenges and opportunities for government libraries in delivering services to their clients. Determining how government library and information services might best confront these challenges and take advantage of new opportunities is crucial for the future of the sector. The Australian Government Libraries Information Network (AGLIN) has commissioned a review of service delivery models in Commonwealth Government libraries. As an initial step in the project, a literature review was undertaken in order to consider the issues which impact directly on government library service provision today. The literature review builds on and updates the review prepared for the Queensland Government Agency Libraries Review (QGALR) five years ago.

Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation

Protocols of systematic reviews and meta-analyses allow for planning and documentation of review methods, act as a guard against arbitrary decision making during review conduct, enable readers to assess for the presence of selective reporting against completed reviews, and, when made publicly available, reduce duplication of efforts and potentially prompt collaboration. Evidence documenting the existence of selective reporting and excessive duplication of reviews on the same or similar topics is accumulating and many calls have been made in support of the documentation and public availability of review protocols. Several efforts have emerged in recent years to rectify these problems, including development of an international register for prospective reviews (PROSPERO) and launch of the first open access journal dedicated to the exclusive publication of systematic review products, including protocols (BioMed Central's Systematic Reviews). Furthering these efforts and building on the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) guidelines, an international group of experts has created a guideline to improve the transparency, accuracy, completeness, and frequency of documented systematic review and meta-analysis protocols--PRISMA-P (for protocols) 2015. The PRISMA-P checklist contains 17 items considered to be essential and minimum components of a systematic review or meta-analysis protocol.This PRISMA-P 2015 Explanation and Elaboration paper provides readers with a full understanding of and evidence about the necessity of each item as well as a model example from an existing published protocol. This paper should be read together with the PRISMA-P 2015 statement. Systematic review authors and assessors are strongly encouraged to make use of PRISMA-P when drafting and appraising review protocols.

On exploratory factor analysis: a review of recent evidence, an assessment of current practice, and recommendations for future use

Exploratory factor analysis (hereafter, factor analysis) is a complex statistical method that is integral to many fields of research. Using factor analysis requires researchers to make several decisions, each of which affects the solutions generated. In this paper, we focus on five major decisions that are made in conducting factor analysis: (i) establishing how large the sample needs to be, (ii) choosing between factor analysis and principal components analysis, (iii) determining the number of factors to retain, (iv) selecting a method of data extraction, and (v) deciding upon the methods of factor rotation. The purpose of this paper is threefold: (i) to review the literature with respect to these five decisions, (ii) to assess current practices in nursing research, and (iii) to offer recommendations for future use. The literature reviews illustrate that factor analysis remains a dynamic field of study, with recent research having practical implications for those who use this statistical method. The assessment was conducted on 54 factor analysis (and principal components analysis) solutions presented in the results sections of 28 papers published in the 2012 volumes of the 10 highest ranked nursing journals, based on their 5-year impact factors. The main findings from the assessment were that researchers commonly used (a) participants-to-items ratios for determining sample sizes (used for 43% of solutions), (b) principal components analysis (61%) rather than factor analysis (39%), (c) the eigenvalues greater than one rule and screen tests to decide upon the numbers of factors/components to retain (61% and 46%, respectively), (d) principal components analysis and unweighted least squares as methods of data extraction (61% and 19%, respectively), and (e) the Varimax method of rotation (44%). In general, well-established, but out-dated, heuristics and practices informed decision making with respect to the performance of factor analysis in nursing studies. Based on the findings from factor analysis research, it seems likely that the use of such methods may have had a material, adverse effect on the solutions generated. We offer recommendations for future practice with respect to each of the five decisions discussed in this paper.

Polymorphisms in the vascular endothelial growth factor gene and the risk of familial endometriosis

Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) is an endothelial cell-specific angiogenic protein suspected to be involved in the pathogenesis of endometriosis by establishing a new blood supply to the human exfoliated endometrium. Several transcription factor-binding sites are found in the VEGF 5'-untranslated region and variation within the region increases the transcriptional activity. Six previous studies which tested between one and three single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in samples comprising 105-215 cases and 100-219 controls have produced conflicting evidence for association between the SNPs in the VEGF region and endometriosis. To further investigate the reported association between VEGF variants and endometriosis, we tested the four VEGF polymorphisms (-2578 A/C, rs699947; -460 T/C, rs833061; +405 G/C, rs2010963 and +936 C/T, rs3025039) in a large Australian sample of 958 familial endometriosis cases and 959 controls. We also conducted a literature-based review of all relevant association studies of these VEGF SNPs in endometriosis and performed a meta-analysis. There was no evidence for association between endometriosis and the VEGF polymorphisms genotyped in our study. Combined association results from a meta-analysis did not provide any evidence for either genotypic or allelic association with endometriosis. Our detailed review and meta-analysis of the VEGF polymorphisms suggests that genotyping assay problems may underlie the previously reported associations between VEGF variants and endometriosis.

Erros pré-analíticos em medicina laboratorial: uma revisão sistemática

MENEZES, Patrick Lourenço. Erros pré-analíticos em medicina laboratorial: uma revisão sistemática. 2013. 98 f. Dissertação (Mestrado em Saúde, Medicina Laboratorial e Tecnologia Forense) - Instituto de Biologia Roberto Alcântara Gomes, Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, 2013. A relevância evidente dos erros pré-analíticos como problema de saúde pública fica patente tanto no dano potencial aos pacientes quanto nos custos ao sistema de saúde, ambos desnecessários e evitáveis. Alguns estudos apontam que a fase pré-analítica é a mais vulnerável a erros, sendo responsável por, aproximadamente, 60 a 90% dos erros laboratoriais em consequência da falta orientação aos pacientes sobre os procedimentos que serão realizados no laboratório clínico. Objetivos: Sistematizar as evidências científicas relacionadas aos erros pré-analíticos dos exames laboratoriais de análises clínicas. Método: Uma revisão sistemática foi realizada, buscando as bases de dados do Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), Scopus(que inclui MEDLINE e Embase), ISI Web of Knowledge, SciFinder, Literatura Latino-Americana e do Caribe em Ciências da Saúde (Lilacs) (que inclui a Scientific Electronic Library Online SciELO) e o Índice Bibliográfico Espanhol de Ciências de Saúde (IBECS), para artigos publicados entre janeiro de 1990 e junho de 2012 sobre erros de exames laboratoriais que possam ocorrer na fase pré-analítica. Os estudos foram incluídos de acordo com os seguintes exames laboratoriais: hemograma, análise bioquímica do sangue total ou do soro, exames de coagulação sanguínea,uroanálise e exames hematológicos ou bioquímicos em outros materiais e categorizados pelo tipo de erro pré-analítico e pela frequência dos incidentes. Resultados: A busca nas bases de dados bibliográficas resultou no seguinte número de artigos recuperados: 547 na MEDLINE, 229 na Scopus, 110 na ISI, 163 na SciFinder, 228 na Lilacs e 64 na IBECS, perfazendo um total de 1.341 títulos. Ao fim da revisão sistemática, obteve-se um conjunto de 83 artigos para leitura de texto completo, dos quais 14 foram incluídos na revisão. Os estudos abrangeram diferentes tipos de laboratórios, setores técnicos e origem de erros, segundo a fase do processo laboratorial. Discussão: Sete artigos demonstraram erros de pedidos médicos, com uma alta variabilidade nos valores de incidência. Os seis artigos que estudaram erros de coleta de amostra observaram redução deste desfecho. As proporções de eventos adversos relatados e os impactos clínicos variaram, levando a consequências descritas como: erros decorrentes da flebotomia, recoleta de amostras, repetições de exames, atrasos na liberação de resultados de exames e possíveis danos ao paciente. Conclusões: O laboratório deve ter instruções por escrito para cada teste, que descreva o tipo de amostra e procedimento de coleta de amostra. Meios de identificação por código de barras, sistemas robóticos e analíticos reduzem os erros pré-analíticos. A melhoria da fase pré-analítica de testes laboratoriais permanece um desafio para muitos laboratórios clínicos.

Survey of new 2007 and 2011 Cochrane reviews found 37% of prespecified outcomes not reported

OBJECTIVES: To survey the outcomes used in Cochrane Reviews, as part of our work within the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials Initiative.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A descriptive survey of Cochrane Reviews, divided by Cochrane Review Group (CRG), published in full for the first time in 2007 and 2011. Outcomes specified in the methods section of each review and outcomes reported in the results section of each review were of interest, in this exploration of the common use of outcomes and core outcome sets (COS).

RESULTS: Seven hundred eighty-eight reviews, specifying 6,127 outcomes, were included. When we excluded specified outcomes from the 86 reviews that did not include any studies, we found that 1,996 (37%) specified outcomes were not reported. Of the 361 new reviews with studies from 2011, 113 (31%) had a "summary of findings" table (SoF). Fifteen broad outcome categories were identified and used to manage the outcome data. We found consistency in the use of these categories across CRGs but inconsistency in outcomes within these categories.

CONCLUSION: COS have been used rarely in Cochrane Reviews, but the introduction of SoF makes the development and application of COS timelier than ever.

Power, effects, confidence, and significance: an investigation of statistical practices in nursing research

Objectives: To (a) assess the statistical power of nursing research to detect small, medium, and large effect sizes; (b) estimate the experiment-wise Type I error rate in these studies; and (c) assess the extent to which (i) a priori power analyses, (ii) effect sizes (and interpretations thereof), and (iii) confidence intervals were reported. Design: Statistical review. Data sources: Papers published in the 2011 volumes of the 10 highest ranked nursing journals, based on their 5-year impact factors. Review methods: Papers were assessed for statistical power, control of experiment-wise Type I error, reporting of a priori power analyses, reporting and interpretation of effect sizes, and reporting of confidence intervals. The analyses were based on 333 papers, from which 10,337 inferential statistics were identified. Results: The median power to detect small, medium, and large effect sizes was .40 (interquartile range [. IQR]. = .24-.71), .98 (IQR= .85-1.00), and 1.00 (IQR= 1.00-1.00), respectively. The median experiment-wise Type I error rate was .54 (IQR= .26-.80). A priori power analyses were reported in 28% of papers. Effect sizes were routinely reported for Spearman's rank correlations (100% of papers in which this test was used), Poisson regressions (100%), odds ratios (100%), Kendall's tau correlations (100%), Pearson's correlations (99%), logistic regressions (98%), structural equation modelling/confirmatory factor analyses/path analyses (97%), and linear regressions (83%), but were reported less often for two-proportion z tests (50%), analyses of variance/analyses of covariance/multivariate analyses of variance (18%), t tests (8%), Wilcoxon's tests (8%), Chi-squared tests (8%), and Fisher's exact tests (7%), and not reported for sign tests, Friedman's tests, McNemar's tests, multi-level models, and Kruskal-Wallis tests. Effect sizes were infrequently interpreted. Confidence intervals were reported in 28% of papers. Conclusion: The use, reporting, and interpretation of inferential statistics in nursing research need substantial improvement. Most importantly, researchers should abandon the misleading practice of interpreting the results from inferential tests based solely on whether they are statistically significant (or not) and, instead, focus on reporting and interpreting effect sizes, confidence intervals, and significance levels. Nursing researchers also need to conduct and report a priori power analyses, and to address the issue of Type I experiment-wise error inflation in their studies. © 2013 .

Recanalization after acute deep vein thrombosis

O processo de recanalização das veias dos membros inferiores, após um episódio de trombose venosa profunda aguda em pacientes anticoagulados com heparina e inibidores da vitamina K, faz parte da evolução natural da remodelagem do trombo venoso. Esse complexo processo de remodelagem envolve a adesão do trombo à parede da veia, à resposta inflamatória da parede do vaso, levando à organização e subsequente contração do trombo, à neovascularização e à lise espontânea de áreas no interior do trombo. A presença de fluxo arterial espontâneo em veias com trombose recanalizada tem sido descrita como secundária à neovascularização e se caracteriza pelo desenvolvimento de fluxo com padrão de fístulas arteriovenosas, identificadas por meio de mapeamento dúplex colorido. Nesta revisão, são discutidos alguns aspectos controversos da história natural da trombose venosa profunda, para uma melhor compreensão da sua evolução e do seu impacto sobre a doença venosa.

Do we really know the prevalence of accomodative and nonstrabismic binocular dysfunctions?

Purpose: To determine the scientific evidence about the prevalence of accommodative and nonstrabismic binocular anomalies. Methods: We carried out a systematic review of studies published between 1986 and 2009, analysing the MEDLINE, CINAHL, FRANCIS and PsycINFO databases. We considered admitting those papers related to prevalence in paediatric and adult populations. We identified 660 articles and 10 papers met the inclusion criteria. Results: There is a wide range of prevalence, particularly for accommodative insufficiency (2 %-61.7 %) and convergence insufficiency (2.25 %-33 %). More studies are available for children (7) compared with adults (3). Most of studies examine clinical population (5 studies) with 3 assessed at schools and 1 at University with samples that vary from 65 to 2048 patients. There is great variability regarding the number of diagnostic signs ranging from 1 to 5 clinical signs. We found a relation between the number of clinical signs used and prevalence values for convergence insufficiency although this relationship cannot be confirmed for other conditions. Conclusion: There is a lack of proper epidemiological studies about the prevalence of accommodative and nonstrabismic binocular anomalies. Studies reviewed examine consecutive or selected patients in clinical settings and schools but in any case they are randomized and representative of their populations with no data for general population. The wide discrepancies in prevalence figures are due to both sample population and the lack of uniformity in diagnostic criteria so that it makes difficult to compile results. Biases and limitations of reports determine that prevalence rates offered are only estimations from selected populations.

Is there any evidence for the validity of diagnostic criteria used for accommodative and nonstrabismic binocular dysfunctions?

Purpose: To analyze the diagnostic criteria used in the scientific literature published in the past 25 years for accommodative and nonstrabismic binocular dysfunctions and to explore if the epidemiological analysis of diagnostic validity has been used to propose which clinical criteria should be used for diagnostic purposes. Methods: We carried out a systematic review of papers on accommodative and non-strabic binocular disorders published from 1986 to 2012 analysing the MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and FRANCIS databases. We admitted original articles about diagnosis of these anomalies in any population. We identified 839 articles and 12 studies were included. The quality of included articles was assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool. Results: The review shows a wide range of clinical signs and cut-off points between authors. Only 3 studies (regarding accommodative anomalies) assessed diagnostic accuracy of clinical signs. Their results suggest using the accommodative amplitude and monocular accommodative facility for diagnosing accommodative insufficiency and a high positive relative accommodation for accommodative excess. The remaining 9 articles did not analyze diagnostic accuracy, assessing a diagnosis with the criteria the authors considered. We also found differences between studies in the way of considering patients’ symptomatology. 3 studies of 12 analyzed, performed a validation of a symptom survey used for convergence insufficiency. Conclusions: Scientific literature reveals differences between authors according to diagnostic criteria for accommodative and nonstrabismic binocular dysfunctions. Diagnostic accuracy studies show that there is only certain evidence for accommodative conditions. For binocular anomalies there is only evidence about a validated questionnaire for convergence insufficiency with no data of diagnostic accuracy.

Relationship between indoor/outdoor concentrations of particles : a critical review

The relationship between indoor and outdoor concentration levels of particles in the absence and in the presence of indoor sources has been attracting an increasing level of attention. Understanding of the relationship and the mechanisms driving it, as well as the ability to quantify it, are of importance for assessment of source contribution, assessment of human exposure and for control and management of particles. It became particularly important to address this topic when evidence came from epidemiological studies on the close association between outdoor concentration levels of particles and health effects, yet with many studies showing that indoor concentrations could be significantly higher than those outdoors. This paper presents a summary of an extensive literature review on this topic conducted with an aim to identify general trends in relation to the I/O relationship emerging from studies conducted worldwide. The review considered separately a larger body of papers published on PM10, PM2.5, as well as the smaller database on particle number and number or volume size distribution. A specific focus of this paper is on naturally ventilated houses. The conclusion from the review is that despite the multiplicity of factors that play role in affecting the relationship, there are clear trends emerging in relation to the I/O relationship for particle mass concentration, enabling more general predictions to be made about the relationship. However, more research is still needed on particle number concentration and size distribution.

Nurse staffing levels and the incidence of mortality and morbidity in the adult intensive care unit : a literature review

BACKGROUND: Studies have shown that nurse staffing levels, among many other factors in the hospital setting, contribute to adverse patient outcomes. Concerns about patient safety and quality of care have resulted in numerous studies being conducted to examine the relationship between nurse staffing levels and the incidence of adverse patient events in both general wards and intensive care units. AIM: The aim of this paper is to review literature published in the previous 10 years which examines the relationship between nurse staffing levels and the incidence of mortality and morbidity in adult intensive care unit patients. METHODS: A literature search from 2002 to 2011 using the MEDLINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), PsycINFO, and Australian digital thesis databases was undertaken. The keywords used were: intensive care; critical care; staffing; nurse staffing; understaffing; nurse-patient ratios; adverse outcomes; mortality; ventilator-associated pneumonia; ventilator-acquired pneumonia; infection; length of stay; pressure ulcer/injury; unplanned extubation; medication error; readmission; myocardial infarction; and renal failure. A total of 19 articles were included in the review. Outcomes of interest are patient mortality and morbidity, particularly infection and pressure ulcers. RESULTS: Most of the studies were observational in nature with variables obtained retrospectively from large hospital databases. Nurse staffing measures and patient outcomes varied widely across the studies. While an overall statistical association between increased nurse staffing levels and decreased adverse patient outcomes was not found in this review, most studies concluded that a trend exists between increased nurse staffing levels and decreased adverse events. CONCLUSION: While an overall statistical association between increased nurse staffing levels and decreased adverse patient outcomes was not found in this review, most studies demonstrated a trend between increased nurse staffing levels and decreased adverse patient outcomes in the intensive care unit which is consistent with previous literature. While further more robust research methodologies need to be tested in order to more confidently demonstrate this association and decrease the influence of the many other confounders to patient outcomes; this would be difficult to achieve in this field of research.

Writing an academic literature review

A presentation on how to write an academic literature review for SOES 6018. This module aims to ensure that MSc Oceanography, MSc Marine Science, Policy & Law and MSc Marine Resource Management students are equipped with the skills they need to function as professional marine scientists, in addition to / in conjuction with the skills training in other MSc modules. The module covers training in fieldwork techniques, communication & research skills, IT & data analysis and professional development.

A comparison of patient satisfaction between treatment with conventional complete dentures and overdentures in the elderly: a literature review

Background:It has been stated that mandibular overdentures are more satisfactory than conventional dentures, but problems relating to the use of retrospective ratings, lack of control group and sequential provision of treatment may compromise the findings.Objective:To establish a comparison between treatment with conventional complete dentures and implant-retained overdentures in elderly patients by conducting a literature review.Materials and methods:A search of English language peer-review literature was completed using Medline up to 2008 focusing on evidence-based research. Randomised clinical trials (RCTs) and longitudinal prospective studies were favoured in the review, using a general hierarchical classification. Articles that did not focus exclusively on the comparison of patient satisfaction between complete dentures and overdentures were excluded from further evaluation. The last search was conducted in February 2008. Key terms included quality of life, patient satisfaction, edentulism, complete denture and overdenture.Results:Among the 90 articles found in the initial search, 27 met the inclusion criteria. This included 18 RCTs and eight prospective and one cohort study. Most of the articles stated superiority of the mandibular implant-retained overdenture therapy over the conventional complete denture regarding patient satisfaction and quality of life.Conclusion:Even with implant treatment presenting higher patient satisfaction and improvement of quality of life, it was not possible to establish a direct comparison between the studies due to differences in adopted methodologies.