The selection of high-impact health informatics literature

A comparison of results between the content expert and the expert searcher

Elizabeth C. Whipple, Julie J. McGowan, Brian Dixon, Atif Zafar

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

5 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) National Resource Center for Health Information Technology (NRC) created the Health IT Bibliography that contains peer-reviewed articles in eleven different health informatics categories. To create the bibliography, informatics experts identified what they considered the seminal articles in each category. Methods: Using the same eleven categories, an expert searcher (librarian) compiled a list of the "best" health informatics articles using information seeking and retrieval tools. The two sets of articles were then compared using high citation counts as a measure of value. Results: The expert searcher set (8,230) contained more than 3 times the citations to chosen articles compared to the content expert set (2,382). Of 60 articles, 27% of those articles (n516) were included in both sets. The frequently cited journals were similar for both sets, and one-third of the same authors were cited in both sets. Discussion: While citation counts and the timeliness of the articles differed in the two sets, the same authors and same journals were frequently present in both sets. Conclusion: A best practice for locating high-quality articles may be collaboration between expert searchers and content experts.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)212-218
Number of pages7
JournalJournal of the Medical Library Association
Volume97
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 1 2009

Fingerprint

Informatics
Bibliography
expert
Health
health
Librarians
Medical Informatics
Information Storage and Retrieval
Health Services Research
Practice Guidelines
bibliography
health information
best practice
literature
librarian
information technology
resources
Values

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Health Informatics
  • Library and Information Sciences

Cite this

The selection of high-impact health informatics literature : A comparison of results between the content expert and the expert searcher. / Whipple, Elizabeth C.; McGowan, Julie J.; Dixon, Brian; Zafar, Atif.

In: Journal of the Medical Library Association, Vol. 97, No. 3, 01.07.2009, p. 212-218.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{54997f3ad8a44bb08b942d43a2770502,
title = "The selection of high-impact health informatics literature: A comparison of results between the content expert and the expert searcher",
abstract = "Background: The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) National Resource Center for Health Information Technology (NRC) created the Health IT Bibliography that contains peer-reviewed articles in eleven different health informatics categories. To create the bibliography, informatics experts identified what they considered the seminal articles in each category. Methods: Using the same eleven categories, an expert searcher (librarian) compiled a list of the {"}best{"} health informatics articles using information seeking and retrieval tools. The two sets of articles were then compared using high citation counts as a measure of value. Results: The expert searcher set (8,230) contained more than 3 times the citations to chosen articles compared to the content expert set (2,382). Of 60 articles, 27{\%} of those articles (n516) were included in both sets. The frequently cited journals were similar for both sets, and one-third of the same authors were cited in both sets. Discussion: While citation counts and the timeliness of the articles differed in the two sets, the same authors and same journals were frequently present in both sets. Conclusion: A best practice for locating high-quality articles may be collaboration between expert searchers and content experts.",
author = "Whipple, {Elizabeth C.} and McGowan, {Julie J.} and Brian Dixon and Atif Zafar",
year = "2009",
month = "7",
day = "1",
doi = "10.3163/1536-5050.97.3.010",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "97",
pages = "212--218",
journal = "Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA",
issn = "1536-5050",
publisher = "Medical Library Association",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The selection of high-impact health informatics literature

T2 - A comparison of results between the content expert and the expert searcher

AU - Whipple, Elizabeth C.

AU - McGowan, Julie J.

AU - Dixon, Brian

AU - Zafar, Atif

PY - 2009/7/1

Y1 - 2009/7/1

N2 - Background: The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) National Resource Center for Health Information Technology (NRC) created the Health IT Bibliography that contains peer-reviewed articles in eleven different health informatics categories. To create the bibliography, informatics experts identified what they considered the seminal articles in each category. Methods: Using the same eleven categories, an expert searcher (librarian) compiled a list of the "best" health informatics articles using information seeking and retrieval tools. The two sets of articles were then compared using high citation counts as a measure of value. Results: The expert searcher set (8,230) contained more than 3 times the citations to chosen articles compared to the content expert set (2,382). Of 60 articles, 27% of those articles (n516) were included in both sets. The frequently cited journals were similar for both sets, and one-third of the same authors were cited in both sets. Discussion: While citation counts and the timeliness of the articles differed in the two sets, the same authors and same journals were frequently present in both sets. Conclusion: A best practice for locating high-quality articles may be collaboration between expert searchers and content experts.

AB - Background: The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) National Resource Center for Health Information Technology (NRC) created the Health IT Bibliography that contains peer-reviewed articles in eleven different health informatics categories. To create the bibliography, informatics experts identified what they considered the seminal articles in each category. Methods: Using the same eleven categories, an expert searcher (librarian) compiled a list of the "best" health informatics articles using information seeking and retrieval tools. The two sets of articles were then compared using high citation counts as a measure of value. Results: The expert searcher set (8,230) contained more than 3 times the citations to chosen articles compared to the content expert set (2,382). Of 60 articles, 27% of those articles (n516) were included in both sets. The frequently cited journals were similar for both sets, and one-third of the same authors were cited in both sets. Discussion: While citation counts and the timeliness of the articles differed in the two sets, the same authors and same journals were frequently present in both sets. Conclusion: A best practice for locating high-quality articles may be collaboration between expert searchers and content experts.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=67749095038&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=67749095038&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.3163/1536-5050.97.3.010

DO - 10.3163/1536-5050.97.3.010

M3 - Article

VL - 97

SP - 212

EP - 218

JO - Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA

JF - Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA

SN - 1536-5050

IS - 3

ER -