How Good Is Survey Design in Medical Libraries? A Systematic Review of User Surveys

<p>Introduction: Medical libraries very often base the decisions they make about library services on information gathered from user surveys. Is the quality of information obtained in this way sufficient to enable evidence-based practice? Aim: To determine what aspects of user survey design and presentation obtain the best response rates and therefore high external validity. Also to provide guidance for medical librarians who may wish to carry out user surveys. Methods: Library and information studies databases and Medline were searched to identify studies that reported the results of library user surveys that measured user perceptions of an existing library service or potential service. Studies that evaluated information skills training or clinical librarianship interventions were excluded as they have been looked in separate systematic reviews. Also studies that reported the results of LibQUAL or SERVQUAL were excluded. Results: 54 studies were included. The quality of the majority of the surveys was not clear as the reporting of the methodology of the user surveys was poor. However, it was determined that, as demonstrated in previous research, paper format surveys reported higher response rates than online-only surveys. It was not possible to extract any relevant data from the identified studies to draw any conclusions relating to presentation of the survey instrument. Conclusions: Unless survey methodology is reported in detail it is not possible to judge the quality of the evidence surveys contain. Good survey design is key to obtaining a good response rate and a good response rate means the results can be used for evidence-based practice. A Reporting Survey results Guideline (Resurge) is recommended to help improve the reporting quality of medical library survey research.</p>

How Good Is Survey Design in Medical Libraries? A Systematic Review of User Surveys

<p>Introduction: Medical libraries very often base the decisions they make about library services on information gathered from user surveys. Is the quality of information obtained in this way sufficient to enable evidence-based practice? Aim: To determine what aspects of user survey design and presentation obtain the best response rates and therefore high external validity. Also to provide guidance for medical librarians who may wish to carry out user surveys. Methods: Library and information studies databases and Medline were searched to identify studies that reported the results of library user surveys that measured user perceptions of an existing library service or potential service. Studies that evaluated information skills training or clinical librarianship interventions were excluded as they have been looked in separate systematic reviews. Also studies that reported the results of LibQUAL or SERVQUAL were excluded. Results: 54 studies were included. The quality of the majority of the surveys was not clear as the reporting of the methodology of the user surveys was poor. However, it was determined that, as demonstrated in previous research, paper format surveys reported higher response rates than online-only surveys. It was not possible to extract any relevant data from the identified studies to draw any conclusions relating to presentation of the survey instrument. Conclusions: Unless survey methodology is reported in detail it is not possible to judge the quality of the evidence surveys contain. Good survey design is key to obtaining a good response rate and a good response rate means the results can be used for evidence-based practice. A Reporting Survey results Guideline (Resurge) is recommended to help improve the reporting quality of medical library survey research.</p>

Randomized Comparison of Rituximab Versus Bortezomib Plus Cyclophosphamide and Dexamethasone in Newly Diagnosed Waldenstrom Macroglobulinemia Patients

Background:Waldenstrom's macroglobulinemia (WM) is one type of lymphoma that had the characteristic of both lymphocytes and plasma cells. Rituximab-based or bortezomib-based regiments are commonly used treatment approaches in routine practice in previously untreated patients with LPL/WM. However, which regiment is better still unknown. The purpose of this study is to compare the efficacy of RCD (Rituximab,cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone) and BCD (Bortezomib, cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone)in newly diagnosed WM patients. Methods:30 newly diagnosed WM patients were randomly assigned to BCD or RCD group for introduction chemotherapy. Chemotherapeutic response was evaluated after 3 cycles. If a minor response (MR) or better response achieves, addition 3 cycles will be given. If not, patients will be crossed to control group for another 3 cycles. If a MR or better response comes out, addition 3 cycles will be given, otherwise, the patients will quit this study. Results: Finally, 15 patients were assigned to each treatment group. The basic characteristics of the two groups were similar. The median time to response in RCD and BCD group were 4 months and 3 months, respectively. The CR rate in RCD and BCD group was 20% and 26.7% respectively, with VGPR rate 26.7% and 6.7%, PR rate 46.7% and 40% in each group respectively. Additional 20% minor response was observed in BCD group. The overall response was 86.7% in both groups. However, RCD group had higher good response rate (≥VGPR) compared to BCD ( 46.7% vs 33.4%, p=0.05). The rate of major response (≥PR) in RCD group was higher than that in BCD group (86.7% vs 66.7%, p=0.195). The median follow-up time was 29 months. The median duration of response in RCD and BCD group was 35 months and 30 months, respectively. The 3-year progression-free rate of RCD group was significantly higher than that of the BCD group (87.5% vs 39.2%,p=0.045). The 3-year overall survival rate was 100% with RCD group versus 70% with BCD group (100% vs 70%, p=0.127)The most common adverse events of any grade with RCD and BCD were hematological toxicity. 3 patients in the RCD group had grade 3 or higher granulocytopenia.4 patients in the BCD group occurred grade 3 or higher hypocytosis. Other adverse event in the RCD group included pneumonia (40%), non-infectious fever (26.7%), hyperglycemia (13.3%) and rash (6.7%).The most common non-hematological adverse event in BCD group were peripheral neuropathy (40%), pneumonia (26.7%), herpes zoster (13.3%) and ventosity(6.7%). Events of non-infectious fever occurred more frequently in the RCD group (26.7% vs 0%, p=0.032). However, peripheral neuropathy was more common in the BCD group (40% vs 6.7%, p=0.031). There was no serious non-hematological grade 3 or higher adverse events occurred in the both groups. Conclusion: The RCD and BCD regimens have similar overall response in newly diagnosed WM. RCD regimen has higher good response rate and longer PFS time compared to BCD regimen. Both regimens have good tolerance. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Empirical Analyses of eCommerce

In this chapter, readers are driven through the revelations from the study. This study had a good response rate. The analysis included univariate, bivariate, and multivariate and content analysis.