Visualization of Twitter Networks: Mailana

Twitter is a free social messaging utility for staying connected in real-time. It has become my major social networking and information tool.

There are many Twitter Tools and API’s around. Many can be regarded as gadgets, nice to use, once, twice, thrice and ….then to forget. Some of the tools that I’ve bookmarked:

• http://nearbytweets.com/ to find tweeple and tweets (people and messages) in a certain area.
• http://tweetwasters.com/ how much time did you spent on twitter?
• http://myfirsttweet.com/ the first tweet you ever made…
• http://www.twittermagnets.com/ to make poets from random words
• http://tweetstats.com/ graphs stats including number of tweets, timeline and replies
• http://twitter.grader.com/laikas says something about your “grade”
• http://twittersheep.com/ shows what your “flock” (followers) tweet in a word cloud

Some of these tools are just for fun, others (the last 3 for instance) tell you something about somebody’s twitter network or tweets.
In the last category a new tool has just been launched: Top Twitter Friends on http://twitter.mailana.com/. It is meant to answer the questions: Who do you talk to most often on Twitter? Who are your closest friends (BFF’s)? and What does your social network look like? But it gives also tips on who you should follow, how to find friends in your neighborhood (not successful in my hands) and to find a network of people talking about a certain topic.

I like this tool very much, because it visualizes the network of your relevant contacts and their contacts. My present network looks like this:

I’m automatically in the center. The thicker the threads with people, the more conversations you had with them. DM’s (direct messages) are excluded. When you pass your mouse over a portrait all rays starting from there color red. Within your network, other networks may be visible. For instance, in my network you see a “Dutch community” (wowter, gbierens, essen2punt0 etc) and an Australian one (@dreamingspires, @sandnsurf, bitethedust). Some people are pivots themselves: like @mikehawker and @scanman.
You can see anyone’s network by clicking a portrait or typing a name.

A list of your 10 closest “friends” is also shown. My closest “friend” is symtym, runners up are the librarians @pudliszek and @shamsha. And there is a list of 10 suggestions as well.

Finally you can make a map of conversations. The following map was created by searching for the hashtag #zorg20 (a dutch health 2.0 meeting). It will be no surprise that the organizer @zorg2.0 is almost in the center.

This tool looks really awesome.
However, it makes you realize that all your tweets and follows are charted. Can this be used to pick up people’s conversation at certain topics? Can it be misused?
I just wondered when I noticed that this system is driven by Mailana social network analysis system (see demo here). This system enables companies to find out valuable hidden information in company e-mails. As shown in the demo, you can search for a company name in Mailana and find which employees mail most about it. You even get a wordcloud on basis of which you can decide who gives you the most valuable information. It is easy to see how that can be used and misused in a company. Would you like your email to become searchable? I wouldn’t! Twitter is an open communication network, but still…..

In this respect it is interesting that according Danielle of the Health Informaticist:

….while the ‘laypeople’ are chattering away (…) a company called Salesforce.com has launched a product to allow “companies to search, monitor and join conversations taking place on Twitter directly in the Service Cloud.”(for more details see post here).

Gives me a bit uncomfortable feeling.

HATTIP: @drval (Mar 21st)

Gene Genie #44

The latest issue of Gene Genie (nr 44) is now up at Mary Meets Dolly. Please enjoy reading the posts here

Gene genie is the “blog carnival of genes and genetic conditions“, initiated and maintained by Bertalan Mesko of Scienceroll.

You can subcribe to Gene Genie by email or RSS feed and as you may know there is also an aggregated feed of credible, rotating health and medicine blog carnivals available (which contains the Grand Round (due today) and the Medlib’s Round as well).

Please mail Bertalan if you want to contribute to the next carnival as a writer or a host (berci.mesko at gmail.com).

SuperNews! Twouble with Twitters

Via Twitter (@stephenfry and @ninjaboi) Check this out! http://tinyurl.com/cx723z
Hilarious. About the twitter phenomenon. Watch the failwhale!

more about “SuperNews! Twouble with Twitters // C…“, posted with vodpod

“Ask a Librarian” a new series in the JAAPA.

The Journal of the American Academy of Physician Assistants (JAAPA) features a new online column : “Ask a Librarian”. Or as JAAPA states it: the inaugural installment of JAAPA’s first online only department. This column is a co-authored by Jim Anderson, Physician Assistant, and Susan Klawansky, Librarian. It aims to promote collaboration of PA’s and other clinicians with medical librarians, address questions from physician assistants and point to resources, including nnlm.gov.

This is a very good initiative, an example that deserves to be followed by other publishers.

The first questions answered were:

1. Can you explain what a MeSH Heading is? I always hear that term, but I don’t understand what it means. Is it something I need to know to do a good search?
2. I need to find an article about an exotic genetic condition of one of my patients. I work in a hospital in a rural and remote area in Montana, and while I have access to the Internet, I don’t have access to a library or a librarian. How can I get help online finding an article, and when I find a reference, how can I get the full-text?

Relevant questions, but the answers are rather superficial and short on the one hand (one paragraph long), but too long-winded at the other hand.

For instance, the second question begins as follows:

Are you in luck! Thanks to the Web, medical librarians are everywhere, floating around in the ether, just waiting for questions like this. As a matter of fact, if you look really quick right now, you might see one sitting there up on your shoulder! But seriously, if you have the Internet, you have a librarian…

to simply tell, one can contact nnlm.gov. for this question (web or telephone)…

This information could be much more to the point. On the other hand I wonder, is there no valuable information in (for instance) the OMIM database that the PA/clinician could get for free?

Again, it is a good initiative and I hope JAAPA will succeed in making this a successful column.

HATTIP : pat_devine (twitter)

Educational Videos about Library Stuff

Yesterday @alisha alerted me to a post of Sheila Webber at the information-literacy blog about a wonderful series of YouTube videos by Llordllam with hand puppets as actors. The videos are a mix of educational videos aimed at librarians, information scientists and library readers. The leading actors are Goose the librarian and Professor Weasel the academic (patron).

The following YouTube video is really superb as well as hilarous. With a typical british sense of humor it tries to make you understand Academic Copyright. Prof Weasel struggles to understand the problems with the traditional journal publication system. Look how he is fooled by the publisher rat.

And for librarians and librarian users this one is a must. Boolean operators explained. Think the jam/bread example will work better than my epistaxis/child example, so who knows I will adapt my slides.

And finally the video “Your Library: A User Centric Experience”. This feels very familiar (the user becomes the king, see also the Flikr pictures in the side bar of our library)

More video’s of Goose and Weasel see page of llordllama on youtube.com and  a facebook page for fans of the video Randy Weasel, Kooei Goose and others

—-

Now, not a Llordllam/Goose/Weasel production, but a very useful video (by paulrobesonlibrary) to illustrate to students the (unusefulness) of Wikipedia as their primary research tool.
Seen at Phil Bradley’s Weblog (No, you can not lower the speed)

Next Medlib’s Round: Start Gathering the Evidence.

Are you already in the mood for the next Medlib’s Round? Still 2,5 weeks to go for the submission deadline. Don’t lay back, though, next month’s theme may require some pondering.
Anne Welsh, who will host the next MedLib’s Round on First Person Narrative came up with a very interesting theme (in fact my favorite one, but I’m biased): EVIDENCE.
Anne:

“This month’s theme is evidence. You might post on critical appraisal or evidence-based medicine more generally. What can the medical approach teach us about evidence-based practice in general? What are the best sources for evidence? What do we do when there are no meta-analyses or systematic reviews on a topic? What about clinical consensus? What did we do before EBM took off in the mid-1990s?”

Source: http://www.le.ac.uk/

I hope that many of you may be inspired by the theme. However, any good quality post on medical information will be considered for publication. And as before not only medical librarians, but anyone interested in this subject is invited to contribute to the MedLib’s Round.

People without a blog of their own who would like to contribute to this event, are offered a guest blogger spot at Anne’s place. You are also welcome at my blog.

Read Anne’s post here for further details. Included in her post are some interesting links to information on EBM.

Submission is due midnight GMT on Saturday 5 April. You can submit the permalink (url) of the post (you have already written on your blog) at the Blog Carnival submission form (you have to login, scroll down (!), submit links to selected posts and give an optional description).

For more information, see the FAQs on this blog and the post of Anne.

Further Reading:

2009/03/11/ – Medlib’s Round 1.2

2009/02/13/ – Medlibs Round First Edition

Medlibs Archive (Separate Tab)

Latest News: Grand Round at ACP Internist

Latest news, hear the latest news: Grand Round is up at ACP Internist, a newspaper serving internal medicine!

This time literally a newsworthy and noteworty round. According to ACP internist:
“We’re paying tribute to the daily newspaper. Read on for the latest headlines, opinions, features and even the funnies.”

There was no theme, all medical/health head news was included. Please enjoy reading all headlines here

The next round will be hosted by Codeblog, tales of a nurse.

An Antibiotic Past May Save Lives at the ICU.

Respiratory tract infections acquired in the intensive care unit (ICU) are important causes of morbidity and mortality, the most significant risk factor being mechanical ventilation. It is thought that hospital pneumonia commonly originates from flora colonized in the patient’s oropharynx (the area of the throat at the back of the mouth). Therefore, reduction of respiratory tract infections has been obtained by putting patients in semirecumbent instead of supine position. Another approach is selective decontamination. There are two methods of selective decontamination, SDD and SOD.

1. SDD, Selective Decontamination of the Digestive tract consists of the administration of topical nonabsorbable antibiotics in the oropharynx and gastrointestinal tract, often concomitant with systemic antibiotics. It aims to reduce the incidence of pneumonia in critically ill patients by diminishing colonization of the upper respiratory tract with aerobic gram-negative bacilli and yeasts, without disrupting the anaerobic flora.
2. SOD, Selective Oropharyngeal Decontamination is application of local antibiotics in the oopharynx only.

Both approaches were first introduced in the Netherlands. Most trials suggested that SDD lowered infection rates, but lacked statistical power to demonstrate an effect on mortality. However, meta-analyses and three single-center, randomized studies, did show a survival benefit of SDD in critically ill patients. Several studies had suggested that the local variant, SOD, was also effective, but SOD was never directly compared with SDD in the same study. Because of methodological issues and concern about increasing antibiotic resistance the use of both SDD and SOD has remained controversial. Even in the Netherlands where guidelines recommended the use of SDD after a Dutch publication in the Lancet (de Jonge et al, 2003) had shown the mortality to drop with 30% in the Academic Medical Center in Amsterdam, only 25% of the emergency doctors followed the guidelines.

The present Dutch study, published in the NEJM (2009), was undertaken to determine the effects on mortality in a head to head comparison of SDD and SOD. The effectiveness of SDD and SOD was determined in a crossover study using cluster randomization in 13 Dutch ICU’s, differing in size and teaching status. Cluster randomization means that ICU’s rather than the individual patients were randomized to avoid that one treatment regimen would influence the outcome of another regimen. Crossover implies that all three treatments (SDD, SOD, standard care) were administered in a random order in all ICU’s.

A total of 5939 patients were enrolled in this large study. Patients were eligible if they were expected to be intubated for more than 48 hours or to stay in the ICU for more than 72 hours. The SDD regimen involved four days of intravenous cefotaxime along with topical application of tobramycin, colistin and amphotericin B; the SOD regimen used only the topical antibiotics. Both regimens were compared with standard care. The duration of the study was six months, and the primary end point was 28-day mortality.

Of the 5,939 patients, 1,990 received standard care, 1,904 received SOD and 2,405 received SDD. Crude mortality rates in the three groups were 27.5%, 26.6% and 26.9%, respectively. These differences are not very huge and benefit was only discernable after adjustment for covariates (age, sex, APACHE II score, intubation status, medical specialty, study site, and study period): adjusted* odds ratios for 28-day mortality were 0.86 (95% CI, 0.74 to 0.99) in the SOD group and 0.83 (95% CI, 0.72 to 0.97) in the SDD group compared with standard care. This corresponded with the needed-to-treat numbers (NNT’s) of 29 and 34 to prevent one casualty at day 28 for SDD and SOD, respectively.

The limitations of the study (acknowledged by the authors) were the absence of concealment of allocation (due to the study design it was impossible to conceal the allocation for doctors at the wards), differences at baseline between the standard care and treatment groups and a mismatch between the original analysis plan and the study design (originally specified in-hospital death was the primary end point, but this did not take into account analysis of cluster effects.)

Selective Decontamination also improved microbiological outcomes, such as carriage of gram-negative bacteria in the respiratory and intestinal tracts and ICU-acquired bacteriemia. During the study periods the prevalence rates for antibiotic-resistant gram-negative bacteria were lower in the SOD and SDD periods than during the standard-care periods.

The authors concluded that both SDD and SOD were effective compared with standard care. Given the similarity in effects on survival between the treatment groups, the SOD regimen seems preferable to the SDD regimen, becauses it minimizes the risk of antibiotic resistance which poses a major threat to patients admitted to ICU’s. It should be noted that MRSA-infections are very rare in the Netherlands and in Scandinavia. The outcome of the study might therefore be different after long term treatment and/or in regions with a high prevalence of MRSA.

References

de Smet, A., Kluytmans, J., Cooper, B., Mascini, E., Benus, R., van der Werf, T., van der Hoeven, J., Pickkers, P., Bogaers-Hofman, D., van der Meer, N., Bernards, A., Kuijper, E., Joore, J., Leverstein-van Hall, M., Bindels, A., Jansz, A., Wesselink, R., de Jongh, B., Dennesen, P., van Asselt, G., te Velde, L., Frenay, I., Kaasjager, K., Bosch, F., van Iterson, M., Thijsen, S., Kluge, G., Pauw, W., de Vries, J., Kaan, J., Arends, J., Aarts, L., Sturm, P., Harinck, H., Voss, A., Uijtendaal, E., Blok, H., Thieme Groen, E., Pouw, M., Kalkman, C., & Bonten, M. (2009). Decontamination of the Digestive Tract and Oropharynx in ICU Patients New England Journal of Medicine, 360 (1), 20-31 DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa0800394

de Jonge E, Schultz M, Spanjaard L, et al. Effects of selective decontamination of the digestive tract on mortality and acquisition of resistant bacteria in intensive care: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2003;362:1011-1016 (PubMed citation)

Wim Köhler (2009) Smeren tegen infectie, NRC Handelsblad, Wetenschapsbijlage 3,4 januari (Dutch, online)

Barclay, L & Vega, C (2009) Selective Digestive, Oropharyngeal Decontamination May Reduce Intensive Care Mortality, Medscape

File, T.M., Bartlett J.G.,& Thorner, A.R. Risk factors and prevention of hospital-acquired (nosocomial); ventilator-associated; and healthcare-associated pneumonia in adults.www.uptodate)

Photo Credit (CC): http://www.flickr.com/photos/30688696@N00/3241003338/ (JomCleay)

MedLib’s Round 1.2

The second Medlib’s Round is up at Dragonfly. This month’s edition of the blog carnival has a loose theme: “enhancing access to health information for health professionals and the public.”

Alison (@aldricham) did a superb job compiling all the submitted post (read them here)

Like the first Medlib’s Round, both medical librarians and doctors (at least 4 MD’s) contributed to the carnival.

I’m not giving anything away, please go to Dragonfly and enjoy reading the carnival.

We hope that you keep contributing to the Medlib’s Round and if you haven’t done so, to give it a try. The more good quality posts, the better.

Submit your blog article (only the link) to the next edition of Medlib’s Round using our carnival submission form. Past posts and future hosts can be found on our blog carnival index page.

The April edition will be hosted by Anne Welsh at First Person Narrative.
Look for it on April 7 or take a subscription to the Medlib’s Round by email or RSS feed.
An aggregated feed of credible, rotating health and medicine blog carnivals is also available (thanks Walter Jessen)

Advanced Neuritis in PubMed

Almost a year ago (June 2008) I discussed PubMed’s Advanced Search Beta in a series entitled PubMed: Past, Present and Future. At that time I was not particularly impressed by disliked Advanced Search Beta and I still do.

November last year some of its features have improved: like the addition of a Clear Button, Focused Queries, providing links to the Clinical Queries and Special Queries pages, and the author/journal search has been extended with optional fields so that it looks more like the valuable Single Citation Mapper in the blue side bar of the Basic PubMed page. And there is a link to the MeSH-database (see NLM Technical Bulletin November 2008).
Although these are real improvements, the links to the Queries and to the MeSH database are inconspicuous, at the end of the page below all kind of limits. My major objections to the Advanced Search is that people are more inclined to narrow their search by using as many limits as possible (because these are so prominently present) and that the MeSH cannot be easily looked up and/or are wrongly translated. Previously I gave some examples, where lung cancer[mesh] was searched, whereas the MeSH is lung neoplasms, or where recurrent pregnancy loss[MeSH] returns no result, because the term is habitual abortion (see previous post).

I avoid Advanced Search as long as I can, but the problem is, the library-users don’t. They like to experiment, especially when they consider themselves as advanced searchers.

Last month a Neurologist asked me if I could check his search for a Diagnostic Systematic Review. A search for a Systematic Review should be comprehensive and thus contain both MeSH-terms (Controlled terms of MEDLINE) and free text words (tw).

He was a resident in Neurology for 5 years and knew how to search PubMed.

Below is the first part of his search.

((((((((motor neuropathy[MeSH Terms] OR motor neuron[tw] OR motor neuropathy[tw]) OR multifocal motor neuropathy[tw]) OR demyelinating neuropathy[tw]) OR multifocal demyelinating motor neuropathy[tw]) OR neuropathy[tw]) OR neuropathies[tw]) AND (((((((((((((((((((((((((…..

Grosso modo it looked all right and well structured. The awful number of brackets is often seen when people combine directly in PubMed (although I was already glad there were no brackets around every single word and he didn’t copy the entire translation from the Details-Tab). And some terms were superfluous: you don’t have to search for multiword terms with neuropathy (i.e. motor neuropathy) because these are already found by searching neuropathy.

So we made the search simpler, like this:

(motor neuropathy[MeSH Terms] OR motor neuron[tw] OR neuropathy[tw]) OR neuropathies[tw]) AND (………

Just to be sure I asked him: “Do you mind if we check the MeSH? Motor Neuropathy looks just fine, but you never know.”

To my surprise, typing motor neuropathy in the MeSH search bar yielded 4 suggestions, none of which was motor neuropathy.

The most suitable term appeared Neuritis. When bringing this MeSH-term to PubMed we got exactly the same number of hits as with Motor Neuropathy. Mere coincidence? No, the hits weren’t any different (#1 NOT #4 giving zero results).

Looking Up the Query Translation under the Details Tab confirmed my suspicion: motor neuropathy[mesh] was translated as “neuritis”[MeSH]. This is disturbing. Not only doesn’t there exist any MeSH specific for motor neuropathy, people are put on the wrong track since it looks like motor  neuropathy[mesh] is recognized as such.

Then it came to my mind that I had seen a similar odd “translation” when using PubMed Advanced Search (see above). And I asked him: “Did you by any chance use the Advanced Search”, which he did.

To check this I searched in Advanced Search for the MeSH: motor neuropathy. And, yes indeed, the motor neuropathy[MeSH] was searched so it seemed. (in reality we now know: Neuritis was searched). The difference with searching the MeSH database is that here I know that I search for neuritis (I choose to), whereas the Advanced search misleads me by suggesting I’m searching for motor neuropathy.

Why do I bother? Why don’t I just use motor neuropathy[mesh]. First because I don’t get what I want: I get neuritis[mesh] not neuropathy! Second, and most important, because it is not the most appropriate MeSH-term.

To find more appropriate MeSH I use a trick. I look for MeSH-terms assigned to articles, having motor neuropathy in their title, assuming that motor neuropathy is an important aspect of those papers.

Although you can look up MeSH assigned to each individual citation in PubMed in the citation display format, it takes a lot of time to go through the papers one at a time. Therefore I rather use GoPubMed or even better PubReminer for this purpose, because these give you a frequency list of the MeSH assigned.

Of the 379 hits found in GoPubMed, 219 were categorized as Motor Neuron Disease, 153 as Demyelinating Diseases and 145 as Polyneuropathies. These categories are MeSH term you can use for your search.

Similarly of the 380 references found in PubReminer, many papers were indexed with Motor Neuron Disease, Demyelinating Diseases, Polyneuropathies, peripheral nervous system diseases and motor neuron.

(Below are the number of papers, indexed with the indicated MESH in PubReminer; PubReminer shows the subheading coupled to the MeSH)

• 65 Motor Neuron Disease/diagnosis
• 32 Motor Neurons/physiology
• 26 Demyelinating Diseases/diagnosis
• 16 Peripheral nervous system diseases/diagnosis
• 8 Polyneuropathies

Using this approach we were able to set up a more complete search in PubMed. Remember it was the neurologist’s purpose to to an exhaustive search, for a less exhaustive search we would have only used motor neuropath* and perhaps motor neuron disease[mesh].

How different is it when you use the OVID interface for searching MEDLINE.

When you type Motor Neuropathy, several MeSH are suggested, many of which are useful:

When you click on Motor Neuron Disease, you see the hierarchal context and can choose which terms you would like to add. We choose not to explode Motor Neuron Disease, but only include one narrow term in our search: amyotrophic lateral sclerosis.

Finally the first part of the search in MEDLINE (OVID) looked like this. It is rather broad but the second part of the search (not shown) puts it into context.

1. motor neuron disease/ or amyotrophic lateral sclerosis/
2. exp Motor Neurons/
3. Demyelinating Diseases/
4. neuromuscular diseases/ or peripheral nervous system diseases/ or neuritis/ or polyneuropathies/
5. (neuropathy or neuropathies).tw.
6. motor neuron*.tw.
7. or/1-6

OVID MEDLINE was easier to use, you get what you see (and want) and the search is easier to save and edit. Furthermore the entire MEDLINE search can be easily transformed to a search in EMBASE: just replace MESH by EMBASE keywords.

I’m not happy with the Advanced Search for reasons explained above. I don’t find the altered mapping and citation sensor a success either. I don’t like that they removed the blue side bar in some display formats. And I’m really getting depressed by NLM’s announcement (November 2008):

PubMed Advanced Search will soon no longer be a beta site. It is now the place to go to use features such as field searching and limits. In the near future the tabs for Limits, Preview/Index, History, Clipboard, and Details will be removed from the basic PubMed pages. History, Limits, Index of Fields, and a link to Details are available from the Advanced Search screen. A link for the Clipboard appears to the right of the search box on the PubMed screen when the Clipboard has content.

If I understand it correctly this means that Pubmed Advanced Search is taking over the basic search.

It looks that my original idea was right: PubMed is going for the mass, it is going for the Google-like quick searches by people that don’t know much about MEDLINE and don’t want to learn it. But you have to know some basic principles to get the most out of subject searching. It is such a pity, that PubMed tries to copy its clones, whereas it holds all the trumps. No other 3rd party tools offer the same possibilities that PubMed offers, although they are more suitable for certain purposes (see examples of GoPubMed and PubReMiner above).

At least make two interfaces, one for the beginner (the present Advanced Search) and one for librarians and other people doing subject searches.

But I don’t have the illusion that the people of PubMed/NLM will listen to me and I’m not going to contact them for a 3rd time. PubMed’s route is determined, I guess.

MedLib’s Round 1.2: Call for submissions

The second MedLib’s Round is coming to town. Well not exactly to my town, but to a place called “Dragonfly, News from the Pacific Northwest Regional Medical Library”. Alison Aldrich (@aldricham) is the welcoming host.

You are invited to submit your posts till Sunday (thus the deadline is March 8). Like the previous time not only (medical) librarians, but all health care people (doctors, patients) are invited to submit, as long as it is a link to a quality post on medical library-related matter.

And Alison has a special theme in mind, namely:

“Enhancing access to health information for health professionals and the public.”

To submit a link, use this form (preferred) or mail the upcoming host.

You can find more information (plus a clear introduction into blog carnivals) at Dragonfly

I hope you all feel inspired to submit a post: we need your input to make it an interesting and enjoyable round. I’m looking forward to it.

Email/RSS feed to the MedLib’s Round and other Medical Blog Carnivals.

There are several noteworthy medical blog carnivals (Grand Rounds) around, but it is difficult to make (and thus take) an email/RSS feed to these carnivals, because the editions are hosted by different bloggers each time.

Recently Walter Jessen of the Highlight HEALTH Network has managed to make a feed to all important medical blog carnivals (based on bookmarks).

I’m very pleased that Walter also took the initiative to make a feed to the MedLib’s Round. You can subscribe to it by clicking this link. This is a superb way to keep up to date with the latest MedLib’s Round.

It is also possible to take one subscription to all medical blog carnivals at once by clicking here.

Alternatively you can take RSS/email feeds to individual blog carnivals at Walter Jessen’s Highlight HEALTH Network:

Presently the following 10 carnivals are included:

1. Grand Rounds Blog Carnival
2. Encephalon Blog Carnival
3. SurgeXperiences Blog Carnival
4. Medicine 2.0 Blog Carnival
5. Change of Shift Blog Carnival
6. Cancer Research Blog Carnival
7. Health Wonk Review Blog Carniva
8. Gene Genie Blog Carnival
9. MedLibs Round
10. Palliative Care Grand Rounds

Thanks Walter for this initiative.

———————————————

You may also want to read:

• The First Medlib’s Round
• Medlibs archive
• The Announcement of the MedLib’s Round.
• The FAQs of the MedLib’s Round.