Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Reference Books”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 361 records · Page 20Linked to original sources
PubMed1998

Use of the Internet for teaching in nuclear medicine.

The Internet provides several new capabilities for education in nuclear medicine, including learning at a distance, facilitation of collaboration, increased availability of training resources, and ability to develop interactive teaching materials. Dedicated case-authoring software aided development of digital teaching files at the Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology and the Joint Program in Nuclear Medicine. Accesses to these two teaching files from sites around the world have grown rapidly. Improvements in the speed of the Internet will allow inclusion of more images at higher resolution and more extensive use of cine. Development of server-based software will allow simulation of the actual image-reading environment. A better understanding of how to use this new media will spur continued expansion in use of the Internet for nuclear medical education.

CD-ROM↗
PubMed2002

Conducting a search of the literature.

The purpose of this article is to show how to search the literature for articles that may be appropriate in answering a particular question related to patient care.

Databases, Bibliographic↗
PubMed1999

Comparison of intrauterine and intracervical insemination with frozen donor sperm: a meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether artificial insemination with frozen donor sperm yielded a higher pregnancy rate per cycle by intracervical (ICI) or intrauterine (IUI) techniques. A meta-analysis was performed. DATA IDENTIFICATION: A computerized MEDLINE search of the English-language literature on artificial insemination with donor sperm was performed and augmented by a review of meeting abstract books and references in published papers. STUDY SELECTION: Only prospective randomized studies that reported monthly fecundity rates for IUI and ICI with frozen donor sperm were included. DATA ANALYSIS: Seven studies were identified. The odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were determined with use of the general estimating equation method for the three studies for which raw data could be obtained. For the remaining four studies, the OR and CI were assessed with use of the published summary data. A random-effects meta-analysis was then performed. RESULT: Intrauterine insemination resulted in a significantly higher monthly fecundity rate with a common OR of 2.4 (CI 1.5-3.8). CONCLUSION: On the basis of this meta-analysis of the seven prospective studies, IUI results in higher pregnancy rates than ICI for frozen donor insemination.

Cervix Uteri↗
PubMed1997

Incorrect overdose management advice in the Physicians' Desk Reference.

STUDY HYPOTHESIS: Physicians may consult references such as Physicians' Desk Reference (PDR) for overdose management advice. Although PDR recommendations are approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), we hypothesized that they are often outdated and potentially hazardous. METHODS: We surveyed physicians who consulted our poison center during a 1-month period with regard to their use of the PDR for overdose information and also compared PDR overdose treatment recommendations with those of five current major toxicology references. For the PDR overdose information review we examined data from the American Association of Poison Control Centers to identify pharmaceutical categories with the largest number of deaths. We reviewed the four leading drugs with at least 1,000 reported exposures in each category and identified 20 PDR-listed brand-name products for analysis. We obtained the consensus from five current toxicology references on contraindicated treatments, ineffective treatments, and specific recommended treatments or antidotes. Finally, we compared the overdose management advice provided in the 1994 PDR with the toxicology reference consensus. RESULTS: Forty of 80 of physicians surveyed (50%) reported use of the PDR for overdose information in the preceding 12 months. Of the 20 PDR entries, 16 (80%) had at least one deficiency, and 5 (25%) had two or more deficiencies. Thirteen (65%) omitted an indicated specific treatment, three (15%) recommended contraindicated treatments, and four (20%) advised ineffective treatments with potential for harm. Only four entries (20%) had no deficiencies by our survey criteria. CONCLUSION: We found serious discrepancies in overdose treatment advice in the PDR compared with a consensus of current toxicology references. Altogether, four of five PDR entries were deficient, and almost half advised ineffective or frankly contraindicated therapies. Despite FDA approval, the use of PDR overdose advice in a serious poisoning case could result in unnecessary morbidity or mortality.

Drug Information Services↗
PubMed1998

Alternative to the Science Citation Index impact factor as an assessment of emergency medicine's scientific contributions.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: The Science Citation Index "impact factor" is the only available quantitative estimate of a journal's scientific contributions. However, the derivation of this factor contains an intrinsic bias that underestimates the impact of emergency medicine journals. We wished to test the hypothesis that use of an alternative criterion standard would provide an improved profile of the scientific contributions of emergency medicine journals relative to those of other specialties. METHODS: We used an observational, longitudinal, comparative design in which all Index Medicus citations from Advanced Cardiac Life Support (ACLS) publications were aggregated by journal and then stratified by specialty. Proportions and proportionate trends, relative to total citations, were reported by specialty, facilitating comparison of emergency medicine with other disciplines. RESULTS: Among all eight ACLS publications (1974-1994) 4,062 citations met the inclusion criteria. Emergency medicine journals were referenced in 16% of eligible citations (99% confidence interval [CI], 14% to 17%), a figure exceeded only by internal medicine and cardiology journals. Emergency medicine was the only discipline to show a significant proportionate increase in contributions over the 20-year study period (P < .001 by chi 2 for linear trend analysis). CONCLUSION: Contrary to the implications of a low impact factor, an analysis of journal citations in ACLS publications over two decades suggests that emergency medicine has made significant contributions to a broad and important area of scientific inquiry.

Bias↗
PubMed1998

Evidence of methodologic bias in the derivation of the Science Citation Index impact factor.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: The "impact factor" published in Science Citation Index (SCI) is widely used in the scientific community to measure the relative importance of a medical journal. In contrast to all other indicators of academic growth in emergency medicine, impact factors for emergency medicine journals have remained low and unchanged since the inception of the specialty. We wished to investigate this incongruity. METHODS: We examined the methodology used to derive the SCI's journal impact factor. RESULTS: The impact factor for journals is defined mathematically as the number of times a journal is cited over a period of time (the numerator) divided by the number of articles published by that journal during the same period (the denominator). Citation counts are derived from examination of all references contained in a subset of journals known as "source" journals. No emergency medicine journals are included in this group. The only source of citations for emergency medicine journals is from journals outside of emergency medicine. This produces small numerators with relatively constant denominators, leading to low impact factors. CONCLUSION: The apparent failure of emergency medicine journals, as measured by the SCI impact factor, to keep pace with other indicators of academic development of the field is at least in part attributable to a methodologic bias inherent in the derivation of this factor.

Bias↗