Explore the vast range of titles available.

Helping students with systematic reviews goes against the instinct of many librarians, who see it as their duty to talk researchers out of these projects rather than to assist them. My perspective on helping students with systematic reviews changed after meeting with one student a few years ago. However, the question of whether the finished product will be publication worthy or entirely free of error is secondary, in my view, to other potential benefits to the student in completing the assignment.

Objective: The study aimed to analyze the documented role of a librarian in published systematic reviews and meta-analyses whose registered protocols mentioned librarian involvement. The intention was to identify how, or if, librarians’ involvement was formally documented, how their contributions were described, and if there were any potential connections between this documentation and basic metrics of search reproducibility and quality. Methods: Reviews whose PROSPERO protocols were registered in 2017 and 2018 and that also specifically mentioned a librarian were analyzed for documentation of the librarian’s involvement. Language describing the librarian and their involvement was gathered and coded, and additional information about the review, including search strategy details, was also collected. Results: A total of 209 reviews were found and analyzed. Of these, 28% had a librarian co-author, 41% named a librarian in the acknowledgements section, and 78% mentioned the contribution of a librarian within the body of the review. However, mentions of a librarian within the review were often generic (“a librarian”) and in 31% of all reviews analyzed no librarian was specified by name. In 9% of the reviews, there was no reference to a librarian found at all. Conclusions: Even among this set of reviews, where librarian involvement was specified at the protocol level, librarians’ contributions were often described with minimal, or even no, language in the final published review. Much room for improvement appears to remain in terms of how librarians’ work is documented.

Background The social determinants of health (SDOH) are the focus of an exponentially increasing number of publications, including evidence syntheses. However, there is not an established standard for searching for SDOH literature. This study seeks to identify published evidence syntheses pertaining to the SDOH, analyzing the search strategies used and the studies included within these reviews. The primary objectives are to compare search strategies and create a test set of SDOH publications. Methods We searched PubMed, Embase, and Scopus for evidence syntheses that mentioned the SDOH in their research questions and included an SDOH search strategy. Relevant data extracted from each review included databases searched; search terms used for the SDOH; conceptual frameworks referenced; and the citations of primary studies included in the reviews, which were compiled to form a test set of cited papers. The relative recall of the respective search strategies was tested by documenting the total number of MEDLINE results each retrieved and the number of test set papers retrieved. Results Sixty-four evidence syntheses were identified and included in the analysis, and 2750 cited papers were extracted. Findings indicate few commonalities across search strategies in search terms used, the total number of results retrieved, and the number of test set cited papers retrieved. One hundred and ninety-three unique MeSH terms and 1385 unique keywords and phrases were noted among the various search strategies. The number of total results retrieved by the SDOH search strategies ranged from 21,793 to over 16 million. The percentage of cited papers retrieved by the search strategies ranged from 2.46 to 97.9%. Less than 3% of the cited papers were indexed with the Social Determinants of Health MeSH. Conclusions There has been little consistency across evidence syntheses in approaches to searching for SDOH literature. Differences in these strategies could have a significant impact on what literature is retrieved, included in reviews, and, consequently, incorporated into evidence-based practice. By documenting these differences and creating a set of papers relevant to SDOH, this research provides a snapshot of the current challenges in searching for SDOH content and lays the groundwork for the creation of a standardized search approach for SDOH literature.

Background Work-related musculoskeletal disorders (WMSDs), also referred to as work-related musculoskeletal injuries (MSKIs), cause surgeons pain and discomfort. Implementing ergonomics in the operating room has helped reduce such symptoms. However, there are still many issues that surgeons face when dealing with medical instruments, especially among female surgeons or surgeons with smaller hands. Methods The Cochrane methodology for performing a systematic review was utilized to search five databases for pertinent literature based on the study question “Do female surgeons or surgeons with smaller hand size, who use surgical instruments have an increased risk of musculoskeletal disorders and discomfort compared to male or larger handed surgeons?”. The literature search strategy was designed around the three conceptual domains of surgeons/surgery, smaller hand size, and instrumentation. We searched PubMed, Embase.com, CINAHL Plus with Full Text (EBSCOhost), Scopus, and Web of Science Core Collection. This exploration identified 2165 research publications, and after specific inclusion and exclusion criteria, 19 studies were included in the systematic review. Risk of bias analysis was conducted to assess the quality of the included studies. After conducting a heterogeneity test, a meta-analysis was not performed due to high heterogeneity. Results Using certain surgical instruments presents challenges in the form of MSKIs for female and smaller-handed surgeons. Studies showed that 77% of females and 73% of surgeons who wear < 6.5 glove size report musculoskeletal issues ranging from difficulty of use to pain. Difficulties using surgical instruments and reported injuries have a greater impact on surgical trainees which might deter interest in surgical fields for future proceduralists. Recommendations for improved ergonomic tool design are suggested by some of the included studies to help tackle the MSKIs that surgeons face when performing operations. Conclusions The number of female surgeons has increased substantially in the last decade. Hence, there exists an urgent need to address the major challenges they encounter by focusing on this specific aspect of workplace safety and health to mitigate injury. Doing so will yield a productive environment while simultaneously protecting the health and safety of both surgeons and patients. Systematic review registration The study protocol was registered on PROSPERO (ID: CRD42022283378).

Objective: This study explores the variety of information formats used and audiences targeted by public health faculty in the process of disseminating research.Methods: The authors conducted semi-structured interviews with twelve faculty members in the School of Public Health at the University of Illinois at Chicago, asking them about their research practices, habits, and preferences.Results: Faculty scholars disseminate their research findings in a variety of formats intended for multiple audiences, including not only their peers in academia, but also public health practitioners, policymakers, government and other agencies, and community partners.Conclusion: Librarians who serve public health faculty should bear in mind the diversity of faculty’s information needs when designing and improving library services and resources, particularly those related to research dissemination and knowledge translation. Promising areas for growth in health sciences libraries include supporting data visualization, measuring the impact of non-scholarly publications, and promoting institutional repositories for dissemination of research.

Prepubescent children and young adolescents (ages 7–14) are in a critical developmental stage for establishing the foundations of healthy sexual behavior. Increasing rates of precocious puberty, combined with limited access to accurate and age-appropriate sexual health education, heighten the vulnerability of this age group to sexual health risks. These risks include early and often coerced sexual initiation, exposure to sexual abuse, and consequent outcomes such as sexually transmitted infections and early pregnancies. However, comprehensive cross-regional analyses and evidence-based interventions addressing the sexual health needs of this age group remain limited. Addressing this gap promotes mutual learning, context-specific adaptation, and global alignment of sexual health support efforts, crucial for achieving the Sustainable Development Goal target of universal access to sexual and reproductive health care. This scoping review aims to map the available evidence on the scope and characteristics of sexual health interventions for prepubescents and young adolescents in the United States and Sub-Saharan Africa. The proposed scoping review will be conducted in accordance with the Arksey and O’Malley framework and Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology for scoping review. A systematic search of English-language articles published from 2010–2025 will be conducted across PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Scopus, Web of Science, ERIC, and African Index Medicus. Five reviewers will screen the articles in Covidence and independently assess full-text articles using a standardized data extraction form. Discrepancies will be resolved through discussion and with a sixth reviewer. The review will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines. Data will be summarized and synthesized to identify patterns in interventions, delivery methods, outcomes, and implications for practice, research, and policy. Comparative and gap analyses will highlight similarities, differences, and priorities for future research and interventions. An adolescent sexual health expert will help validate and contextualize findings. Results can guide strategies to address shared challenges and advance universal access to sexual health support for prepubescents and young adolescents.

Background This study uses bibliometric analysis to describe the state of research about the association of NO 2 , PM 2.5 and noise exposures – three traffic-related pollutants – with cardiometabolic disorders. Methods We retrieved references published 1994–2017 from Scopus and classified references with respect to exposure, health outcome and study design using index keywords. Temporal trend, top cited references, used index keywords and the number of hypothesis testing and non-hypothesis testing study design for each group were identified. Results Results show PM 2.5 is the most frequently studied exposure (47%), followed by both NO 2 and PM 2.5 exposure (29%). Only 3% of references considered multiple exposures between NO 2 and/or PM 2.5 and noise, and these were published after 2008. While we observed a growing trend in studies with NO 2 and/or PM 2.5 and noise and diabetes in the last decade, there is a diminishing trend in studies with noise and diabetes. Different patterns of study designs were found through H/NH ratio, the number of references classified as having a hypothesis (H)-testing design relative to the number of references classified as having a non-hypothesis (NH)-testing design. Studies with NO 2 and/or PM 2.5 exposure are more likely to have a H-testing design, while those with noise exposure are more likely to have a NH-testing design, such as cross-sectional study design. Conclusions We conclude with three themes about research trends. First, the study of simultaneous exposures to multiple pollutants is a current trend, and likely to continue. Second, the association between traffic-related pollutants and diabetes and metabolic symptoms is an area for growth in research. Third, the transition to the use of H-testing study designs to explore associations between noise and cardiometabolic outcomes may be supported by improved understanding of the mechanism of action, and/or improvements to the accuracy and precision of air pollution and noise exposure assessments for environmental health research.

Structural change approaches—also known as policy and environmental changes—are becoming increasingly common in health promotion, yet our understanding of how to evaluate them is still limited. An exploratory scoping review of the literature was conducted to understand approaches and methods used to evaluate structural change interventions in health promotion and public health literature. Two analysts—along with health sciences librarian consultation—searched PubMed, Web of Science, and EMBASE for peer-reviewed U. S.-based, English language studies published between 2005 and 2016. Data were extracted on the use of evaluation frameworks, study designs, duration of evaluations, measurement levels, and measurement types. Forty-five articles were included for the review. Notably, the majority (73%) of studies did not report application of a specific evaluation framework. Studies used a wide range of designs, including process evaluations, quasi-or nonexperimental designs, and purely descriptive approaches. In addition, 15.6% of studies only measured outcomes at the individual level. Last, 60% of studies combined more than one measurement type (e.g., site observation + focus groups) to evaluate interventions. Future directions for evaluating structural change approaches to health promotion include more widespread use and reporting of evaluation frameworks, developing validated tools that measure structural change, and shifting the focus to health-directed approaches, including an expanded consideration for evaluation designs that address health inequities.

Objective: The purpose of this study was to investigate the relative effectiveness of three web-scale discovery (WSD) tools in answering health sciences search queries.Methods: Simple keyword searches, based on topics from six health sciences disciplines, were run at multiple real-world implementations of EBSCO Discovery Service (EDS), Ex Libris’s Primo, and ProQuest’s Summon. Each WSD tool was evaluated in its ability to retrieve relevant results and in its coverage of MEDLINE content.Results: All WSD tools returned between 50%–60% relevant results. Primo returned a higher number of duplicate results than the other 2WSD products. Summon results were more relevant when search terms were automatically mapped to controlled vocabulary. EDS indexed the largest number of MEDLINE citations, followed closely by Summon. Additionally, keyword searches in all 3 WSD tools retrieved relevant material that was not found with precision (Medical Subject Headings) searches in MEDLINE.Conclusions: None of the 3 WSD products studied was overwhelmingly more effective in returning relevant results. While difficult to place the figure of 50%–60% relevance in context, it implies a strong likelihood that the average user would be able to find satisfactory sources on the first page of search results using a rudimentary keyword search. The discovery of additional relevant material beyond that retrieved from MEDLINE indicates WSD tools’ value as a supplement to traditional resources for health sciences researchers.

IntroductionGestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is one of the most common health complications during pregnancy. Medical nutrition therapy is the mainstay of treatment for GDM, however, there is no current consensus on optimal dietary approaches to prevent or control hyperglycaemia in pregnancy. The aim of this systematic review is to assess the relationships between plant-based dietary patterns, plant foods and botanical dietary supplements with GDM and maternal glycaemic biomarkers.Methods and analysisA predefined search strategy was used on 16 June 2021, to search PubMed, Embase and CINAHL Plus with Full Text (EBSCOhost), as well as ClinicalTrials.gov, for studies published as original articles in English. Articles will be included if they are human observational studies or clinical trials and will be excluded if they are review articles or conference abstracts. We will use Cochrane’s risk of bias tools for interventions that are parallel arm (Risk of Bias tool for randomised trials version 2 (RoB 2)) and single arm, non-randomised intervention studies (Risk of Bias In Non-randomised Studies-of Interventions (ROBINS-I)). For observational, case–control and cross-sectional studies, we will use the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute’s quality assessment tools. Data will be synthesised in a narrative format describing significant results as well as presenting the results of the quality assessment of studies.Ethics and disseminationThis systematic review does not require ethical approval as primary data will not be collected. The review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and disseminated electronically and in print.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42022306915.