Grand Rounds: Evolving from Link-♥♥ to ♬♫-Links?

9 01 2012

Grand Rounds is “the weekly summary of the best healthcare writing online”. I’ve hosted this medical blog carnival twice and considered it a great honor to do so.

I have submitted a lot of posts to the Grand Rounds. Often I even wrote a special blog post to fit the theme if there was one. Almost all my submissions have been accepted. I really enjoyed the compilations. There was a lot of outstanding creativity and originality in how the links to the blogs were “aggregated” and highlighted.

Usually I only read those posts that seemed the most interesting to me (the summary thus works as a filter). But through the Grand Rounds I read posts that I would never have read and I learned about bloggers I never heard of.

Why am I talking in the past tense? The Grand Round is still there, isn’t it?!

Yes, it is still there (luckily), but the organizers are thinking of a “rejuvenation of  this old dinosaur”. As the previous host, Margaret Polaneczky explained

“… Grand Rounds has dropped a bit off all of our radars. Many, if not most of us have abandoned the old RSS feed to hang out on Twitter, where our online community has grown from a few dozen bloggers to feeds and followers in the hundreds and even thousands.”

One of the measures is that the Grand Rounds editions should be more concise and only include the “best posts”.

I too go for quality, and think one should carefully select contributors (and hosts), but is the 7-year-old dinosaur to be saved by chopping him in pieces? Should we only refer to 10 posts at the max and put the message in a tweet-format like Margaret did in an experiment?
I was glad that Margaret gave a good old fashioned long introduction in the Dinosaur’s style, for that was what I read, NOT the tweets. Sorry tweets are NOT a nice compilation. They are difficult to read.
It also isn’t a solution to tweet the individual links, because a lot of those individual tweets will be missed by most of the potential readers. It is not coherent either. The strength of the Grand Rounds is in the compilation, in the way the host makes the posts digestible. I would say: let the host present the posts in an attractive way and let the reader do the selection and digestion.

Also important: how many of us will write blog posts specially for the Grand Rounds if there is a chance of 2 in 3 that it will be rejected?

It is true that the Grand Rounds is less popular than a few years ago and it is harder to get hosts. But that may partly have to do with advertising. My first Grand Rounds got far more hits than the second one, mainly because we sent a notice to great blogs that linked to us, like Instapundit (853 hits alone) and there was an interview with the host announcing the Grand Rounds at MEDSCAPE. In this way the main intended audience (non-blogging lay people) were also reached. The second time my post was just found by a handful of people checking the edition plus this blog own readers.
(I have to admit that this last Grand Rounds Edition might have been better if it had been more concise, but at least one person (Pranab of Scepticemia) spend  2 hours in reading almost all the posts of the round-up. So it wasn’t for nothing)

If some busy clinicians can be persuaded to host The Grand Rounds using a shorter format, that is fine. And it is good to be more concise and leave out what isn’t of high quality. But why make it a rule to include just 10 or 12? Even more important, don’t change blog posts for tweets. For I don’t think, as Margaret passed on, that the concept of the individual blog has been sometimes “overshadowed by Twitter and Facebook, whose continual unending stream demands our constant attention, lest we miss something important that someone said or re-said…” Even I have given up to constantly follow all streams, and I suppose the same is true for most clinicians, nurses etc. Lets not replace posts by tweets but lets use Twitter and Facebook to promote the Grand Rounds and augment its radius.

The main reason for writing this post is that I disliked the description by Bryan Vartebedian (host of the next round) rather off-putting, perhaps even arrogant:

Grand Rounds is evolving as a more focused, curated publication.  Rather than a 4,000 word chain-o-links, Nick Genes, Val Jones and others felt that a focused collection of recommendations would be more manageable for both readers and hosts.  This is Grand Rounds for quality rather than link love.

Bryan loves the word link-love. Two posts back he wrote:

It isn’t contacts, followers, friends, subscriptions, readers, link love, mentions, or people’s attention.  It’s time.  With time I can have all of these things.  

“Link love” and “chain-o-links” undervalue what blog carnivals are about. Perhaps some bloggers just want to be linked to, but most want to be read, and that is the entire idea behind the blog carnival. I can’t imagine that the blog hosts aim to include as many links as possible. At the most it is love for particular posts not “link love” perse.

Changing the format to tweets (♬♫) will only increase the link/text ratio. Links will become more prominent.

I would rather go for the ♥♥-links*, because I  to blog and I  to read good stuff.

——–

* Note that ♥♥-links is not the same as link-♥

——–

Here is a short Twitter Discussion about the new approach. I fully agree with Ves Dimov viewpoint, especially the last tweet.





Call for Submissions: Medical Grand Rounds at Laika’s MedLibLog

18 10 2011

Grand Rounds is a weekly round up of the best health blog posts on the Internet. Each week a different blogger takes turns hosting and summarizing the best submissions of the week.

October 25th I will be your host. Again…. for I have hosted Grand Rounds once before. Then we made a trip around the library.

This time the theme will be “INFORMATION”.

Difficult? Not at all. Almost anything may fit into this theme. Examples:  Searching for information, information overload, lack of information, misinformation, the hardest information you had to share, the way the doctor (mis)informed you about a disease, how pharma deals with information…. The way information is interpreted (you can also choose psychiatric topics here). Nice or noteworthy articles or books you read. Or you may review an app. Web2.0 tools. Social Media. Data carriers. Ah well, if you sell it the right way and your post is of good quality, I will accept almost everything…..

I have one slight problem though. Grand Rounds is traveling all the way from India to the Netherlands this week and I am away for the weekend. You would help me tremendously if you submit your post this Tuesday or Wednesday!

Official Deadline: Sunday October 23rd, 20.00 pm Central European Time. This is 14.00 EDT (NY)

Please Email your submissions to:

And include:

  •  “Submission for Grand Rounds” in the subject line of your e-mail.
  • Your name (blog author), the name of your blog, and the URL of your specific blog-post submission.
  • A short summary (1 to 3 sentences) of your blog post.

I look forward to receiving your submissions and featuring them here next week. Thank you!

Jacqueline aka Laika.

Photo Credits (CC):  Picture by mag3737 (Flickr)





Grand Rounds 7-50: Dr. Rich Did a Great Job… Jobs, Jobs, Jobs…

6 09 2011

In the old days, bloggers whose posts were included in the Grand Rounds would link to that post from their own blog. Grand Rounds, for those who are not familiar, is a  weekly compilation of the best of the medical blogosphere.

I used to refer to the Grand Rounds once in a while, but quit this habit to prevent that my own posts would get lost amidst the summarizing and/or referring posts.

But I will make an exception for a Grand Rounds edition that is written by a man who combines modern practice along with classic craftsmanship (rather called “old fartness” by the author concerned).

Anyway, Dr Rich of the latest edition of Grand Rounds did a great job with his Grand Rounds 7-50: The Jobs! Jobs! Jobs! Edition.

First of all I was surprised to find a very good summary of my own post. A post about a search topic, which I was rather surprised to find included in the first place. Please let me share this excellent & quite funny plain language summary of my post.

Jaqueline writes Laika’s MedLiblog, a blog dedicated to medical information science. She submits a post entitled, “PubMed’s Higher Sensitivity than OVID MEDLINE… & other Published Clichés,” in which she shows how medical researchers doing literature searches for, among other things, meta-analyses, will stumble upon various “anomalies” in their searches of the PubMed and OVID databases, and then write additional, CV-padding papers about those anomalies. Jaqueline points out that these so-called “anomalies” are actually well-documented “clichés,” which are well-known to information specialists and anyone else who is competent in doing comprehensive literature searches. In other words, Jaqueline has documented that these meta-analysis researchers are rank amateurs at doing the most critical step in conducting meta-analyses – searching the literature for all the appropriate published studies. DrRich has always mistrusted meta-analyses, and Jaqueline has helpfully identified yet another reason to justify such mistrust. He thanks Jaqueline, and whoever planted those database anomalies which allow us to identify potentially incompetent meta-analysis researchers. 

Second, I am always happy if a Grand Round not only quotes the posts of the great medical bloggers I already know, but also includes posts of bloggers who are new to me. Today I’ve found two new blogs I’ve subscribed to.

The First is Sharp incisions (… random cuts in the life of a fledgling medical student), a blog started in 2010 by a second year medical student. He/she wrote an affecting post in 5 parts about the harvesting of six vital organs for transplantation from a patient who has been declared brain dead. (First part starts here)

Here is a quote from the last (5th) part:

Now, all that was left was to close his incision.

I stood beside the surgeon, watching, but through the sterile drape, I reached for the patient’s hand, squeezed it, and silently said,

‘Thank you. Your legacy lives on in these lives you’ve saved.’

One heart.
Two lungs.
A liver.
Two kidneys.

Six futures.

Another blog I subscribed to is In My Humble Opinion (A primary care physician’s thoughts on medicine and life), written by Jordan Grumet (@jordangrumet at Twitter), an Internal Medicine physician. This blog already started in 2008 (just like this blog).

I really enjoyed the beautiful post Sometimes We Are Doctors or as he says at the end of his post:

We are all patients sometimes… and sometimes we are doctors.”

For more summaries please read the entire Grand Rounds at the Covert Rationing Blog. You might just discover your own new favorite blog.





3rd Call for Submissions for “Medical Information Matters”: Tools for Searching the Biomedical Literature

8 05 2011

It takes some doing to breathe life into Medical Information Matters” (blog carnival about medical  information).
A month ago I wrote a 2nd call for submissions post for this blog carnival. Unfortunately the next host, Martin Fenner, didn’t have time to finish a blog post and has come up with a new (interesting) variation on the theme “A Wish list for better medical information”.

Martin asks you to philosophize, blog and/or comment about “Tools for Searching the Biomedical Literature.

You can base your contribution on a recent (editable) survey of 28 different PubMed derivative tools by Zhiyong Lu (NCBI) [1].

Thus, write your thoughts on the various PubMed derivative tools mentioned here or write about your own favorite 3rd party PubMed tool (included or not).

For details, see Martin’s blog post announcing this upcoming edition. The Blog Carnival FAQs are here.

And if you don’t have time to write about this topic, you may still find the survey useful, as well as the views of others on this topic. So check out Martin’s blog Gobbledygook once in a while to see if the blog edition has been posted.

Note [1]: If you have already submitted a post to the carnival, or would like to write about another theme, we will take care that your post (if relevant)  will be included in this or the next edition. You can always submit here.

Note [2]: Would you like to host “Medical Information Matters” at your blog? Please comment here or write to: laika dot spoetnik at gmail dot com. We need hosts for June, July, August and September (submission deadline first Saturday of every month, posting on the next Tuesday)

  1. Lu Z. PubMed and beyond: a survey of web tools for searching biomedical literature. Database. 2011 Jan;2011. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/database/baq036




Medical Information Matters: 2nd Call For Submissions

1 04 2011

You may have noticed that my blog was barely updated between November and February. Lets say I had the winter blues.

As a consequence, the Blog Carnival “Medical Information Matters” hibernated as well. Unintended… But as a host you need to actively engage in blog carnivals. Else few people will submit.

This is the reason that Martin Fenner at Gobblydook didn’t post “his edition”, but luckily he is willing to give it another try.

Here was his call for submissions (in December). I have adapted it a little to make it “up to date”.

In December April I am hosting the blog carnival Medical Information Matters, a blog carnival about – medical information. The deadline for submissions is next Tuesday this weekend, and I have already received a number of interesting posts. As Christmas is right around the corner, I thought that a good theme for the carnival would be a wish list for better medical information. This could mean many different things, e.g. a database that covers a specific area, better access to fulltext papers or clinical trial results, etc. Please submit your posts here.

So, if you have written (or are able to write) a post which fits in with this topic – or fits in with the broader theme of “medical information” or “medical library matters”, please submit the URL (permalink) of your post HERE at the Blog Carnival.

You may also submit a post of someone else. Tips are also appreciated.

See the archive for more information.

For more ideas about what to submit, here is the previous edition at Dean Giustini’s “The Search Principle blog”Medical Blogging Matters: A Carnival of Ideas, November 2010

And, no this is not a April fools day joke….





Internet Sources & Blog Posts in a Reference List? Yes or No?

13 02 2011

A Dutch librarian asked me to join a blog carnival of Dutch Librarians. This carnival differs from medical blog carnivals (like the Grand Rounds and “Medical Information Matters“) in its approach. There is one specific topic which is discussed at individual blogs and summarized by the host in his carnival post.

The current topic is “Can you use an internet source”?

The motive of the archivist Christian van der Ven for starting this discussion was the response to a post at his blog De Digitale Archivaris. In this post he wondered whether blog posts could be used by students writing a paper. It struck him that students rarely use internet sources and that most teachers didn’t encourage or allow to use these.

Since I work as a medical information specialist I will adapt the question as follows:

“Can you refer to an internet source in a biomedical scientific article, paper, thesis or survey”?

I explicitly use “refer to” instead of “use”. Because I would prefer to avoid discussing “plagiarism” and “copyright”. Obviously I would object to any form of uncritical copying of a large piece of text without checking it’s reliability and copyright-issues (see below).

”]

Previously, I have blogged about the trouble with Wikipedia as a source for information. In short, as Wikipedians say, Wikipedia is the best source to start with in your research, but should never be the last one (quote from @berci in a twitterinterview). In reality, most students and doctors do consult Wikipedia and dr. Google (see here and here). However, they may not (and mostly should not) use it as such in their writings. As I have indicated in the earlier post it is not (yet) a trustworthy source for scientific purposes.

But Internet is more than Wikipedia and random Googling. As a matter of fact most biomedical information is now in digital form. The speed at which biomedical knowledge is advancing is tremendous. Books are soon out of date. Thus most library users confine themselves to articles in peer-reviewed scientific papers or to datasets (geneticists). Generally my patrons search the largest freely available database PubMed to access citations in mostly peer-reviewed -and digital- journals. These are generally considered as (reliable)  internet sources. But they do not essentially differ from printed equivalents.

However there are other internet sources that provide reliable or useful information. What about publications by the National Health Council, an evidence based guideline by NICE and/or published evidence tables? What about synopses (critical appraisals) such as published by DARE, like this one? What about evidence summaries by Clinical Evidence like, this one? All excellent, evidence based, commendable online resources. Without doubt these can be used as a reference in a paper. Thus there is no clearcut answer to the abovementioned question. Whether an internet source should be used as a reference in a paper is dependent on the following:

  1. Is the source relevant?
  2. Is the source reliable?
  3. What is the purpose of the paper and the topic?

Furthermore it depends on the function of the reference (not mutually exclusive):

  1. To give credit
  2. To add credibility
  3. For transparency and reproducibility
  4. To help readers find further information
  5. For illustration (as an example)

Lets illustrate this with a few examples.

  • Students who write an overview on a medical topic can use any relevant reference, including narrative reviews, UpToDate and other internet sites if appropriate .
  • Interns who have to prepare a CAT (critically appraised topic) should refer to 2-3 papers, providing the highest evidence (i.e. a systematic review and/or randomized controlled trial).
  • Authors writing systematic reviews only include high quality primary studies (except for the introduction perhaps). In addition they should (ideally) check congress abstracts, clinical trial registers (like clinicaltrials.gov), or actual raw data (i.e. produced by a pharmaceutical company).
  • Authors of narrative reviews may include all kinds of sources. That is also true for editorials, primary studies or theses. Reference lists should be as accurate and complete as possible (within the limits posed by for instance the journal).

Blog, wikis, podcasts and tweets.
Papers can also refer to blog posts, wikis or even tweets (there is APA guidance how to cite these). Such sources can merely be referred to because they serve as an example (articles about social media in Medicine for instance, like this recent paper in Am Pharm Assoc that analyzes pharmacy-centric blogs.

Blog posts are usually seen as lacking in factual reliability. However, there are many blogs, run by scientists, that are (or can be) a trustworthy source. As a matter of fact it would be inappropriate not to cite these sources, if  the information was valuable, useful and actually used in the paper.
Some examples of excellent biomedical web 2.0 sources.

  • The Clinical Cases and Images Blog of Ves Dimov, MD (drVes at Twitter), a rich source of clinical cases. My colleague once found the only valuable information (a rare patient case) at Dr Ves’ blog, not in PubMed or other regular sources. Why not cite this blog post, if this patient case was to be published?
  • Researchblogging.org is an aggregator of expert blogposts about peer-reviewed research. There are many other high quality scientific blogging platforms like Scientopia, the PLOSblogs etc. These kind of blogs critically analyse peer reviewed papers. For instance this blog post by Marya Zilberberg reveals how a RCT stopped early due to efficacy can still be severely flawed, but lead to a level one recommendation. Very useful information that you cannot find in the actual published study nor in the evidence based guideline
  • An example of an excellent and up-to-date wiki is the open HLWIKI (maintained by Dean Giustini, @giustini at Twitter) with entries about health librarianship, social media and current information technology topics, having over 565+ pages of content since 2006! It has a very rich content with extensive reference lists and could thus be easily used in papers on library topics.
  • Another concept is usefulchem.wikispaces.com (an initiative of Jean Claude Bradley, discussed in a previous post. This is not only a wiki but also an open notebook, where actual primary scientific data can be found. Very impressive.
  • There is also WikiProteins (part of a conceptwiki), an open, collaborative wiki  focusing on proteins and their role in biology and medicine.

I would like to end my post with two thoughts.

First the world is not static. In the future scientific claims could be represented as formal RDF statements/triplets  instead of or next to the journal publications as we know them (see post on nanopublications). Such “statements” (already realized with regard to proteins and genes) are more easily linked and retrieved. In effect, peer review doesn’t prevent fraud, misrepresentation or overstatements.

Another side of the coin in this “blogs as an internet source”-dicussion is whether the citation is always appropriate and/or accurate?

Today a web page (cardio.nl/ACS/StudiesRichtlijnenProtocollen.html), evidently meant for education of residents, linked to one of my posts. Almost the entire post was copied including a figure, but the only link used was one of my tags EBM (hidden in the text).  Even worse, blog posts are sometimes mentioned to give credit to disputable context. I’ve mentioned the tactics of Organized Wisdom before. More recently a site called deathbyvaccination.com links out of context to one of my blog post. Given the recent revelation of fraudulent anti-vaccine papers, I’m not very happy with that kind of “attribution”.

Related Articles





Medical Information Matters 2.10 is up at The Search Principle Blog

16 11 2010

In case you missed it: the new edition of Medical Information Matters (edition 2.10) – formerly MedLibs Round is up at the well-known blog “Search Principles” of the equally well-known Dean Giustini, a knowledgeable, helpful and friendly Canadian medical librarian, one of the first bloggers, a web 2.0 pioneer, author of many papers (like this one in the BMJ), main contributor to the UBC Health Library Wiki, educator and expert in EBM. Need I say more?

With a wink to the name of the blog carnival, Dean gave his post the title: Medical Blogging Matters: A Carnival of Ideas, November 2010

And indeed, his post is a real ode to medical bloggers and medical blogging

Dean:

With the rise of Twitter, and the emphasis placed on ‘real time’ idea-sharing and here-I-am visibility on the social web, I often wonder where blogging (all kinds) will be in five years. Perhaps it’s a dying art form.

However, this month, the ‘art of blogging’ seems to be in ample evidence throughout the medical blogosphere and the array of postings illustrates a vast diversity of approaches and opinions. In the posts mentioned, you’ll recognize many of the top names in medical blogging – these dedicated, talented professionals continue to work hard at updating their blogs regularly while carrying on with their work as medical librarians, informaticists and physicians.

Dean started his post by saying

It’s my great honour to be this month’s host for Medical Information Matters — the official name for the medical blog carnival (formerly MedLibs Round) where the “best blog posts in the field of medical information” are shared by prominent bloggers. I am very proud to consider many of these bloggers to be my colleagues and friends.”

But the honor is all mine! I’m glad I finally “dared” to ask him to host this blog carnival and that he accepted it without hesitation. And I, too, consider many of these bloggers, including Dean, to be my colleagues and friends. (Micro)blogging has made the world smaller…

Here are a few tweets mentioning this edition of the blog carnival, showing that it is widely appreciated (see more here):

  1. Dean Giustini
    giustini Here comes “Medical Blogging Matters: A Carnival of Ideas, November 2010″ http://bit.ly/aDzkLT [did I miss anyone? let me know]
  2. Francisco J Grajales
  3. westr
    westr Some big names in there! RT @pfanderson Medical blogging MATTERS http://bit.ly/aDzkLT
  4. Ves Dimov, M.D.
    DrVes Medical Information Matters: the weekly best of related blog posts http://goo.gl/sBgw2
  5. Kevin Clauson

this quote was brought to you by quoteurl

Next month Medical Information Matters will be hosted by another well known blogger: Martin Fenner of Gobblydook. Martin’s blog belonged to the Nature Network, but it was recently moved to the PLOS blog network.

According to the about section:

Martin Fenner works as a medical doctor and cancer researcher at the Hannover Medical School Cancer Center in Germany. He is writing about how the internet is changing scholarly communication. Martin can be found on Twitter as @mfenner.

So it seems that Martin combines 3 professions, that of a doctor, researcher, and a medical information specialist. This promises a wonderful round again.

The deadline for submission is Saturday December 4th (or perhaps even Sunday 5th).

The theme, if any, is not known yet. However, you can ALWAYS submit the URL/permalink of a recent, good quality post at:

http://blogcarnival.com/bc/submit_6092.html

(keep in touch, because we will write a call for submissions post later)

Finally a request to you all:

For 2011, I’m looking for new hosts, be it scientists, researchers, librarians, physicians or other health care workers, people who have hosted this blog carnival before, or not, people who have a longstanding reputation as blogger as well as people who just started blogging. It doesn’t matter, as long as you have a blog and you like hosting this blog carnival.

Please comment below or mail me at laika dot spoetnik at gmail dot com








Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 611 other followers