CrossRef's Text and Data Mining Services

CrossRef ( http://www.crossref.org/ ) is an association of scholarly publishers that develops shared infrastructure to support more effective scholarly communications. In May 2014, CrossRef launched CrossRef Text and Data Mining Services for its members. This article covers the thinking behind CrossRef launching this service, and the particular problems it aims to address around the collection of full‐text content for the purposes of text and data mining (TDM). It explains the technical aspects of the service for researchers and lets publishers know what they need to provide to CrossRef in order to participate and how to do so. It will also describe the pilot of CrossRef's TDM Services, and information on publisher uptake since the launch and how this can be measured, and the costs for joining or using the service.     

Recommendations for the application and follow-up of quality controls in medical laboratories

This is a translation of the paper “Recommendations for the application and follow-up of quality controls in medical biology laboratories” published in French in the journal Annales de Biologie Clinique (Recommandations pour la mise en place et le suivi des contrôles de qualité dans les laboratoires de biologie médicale. Ann Biol Clin (Paris). 2019;77:577-97.). The recommendations proposed in this document are the result of work conducted jointly by the Network of Accredited Medical Laboratories (LABAC), the French Society of Medical Biology (SFBC) and the Federation of Associations for External Quality Assessment (FAEEQ). The different steps of the implementation of quality controls, based on a risk analysis, are described. The changes of reagent or internal quality control (IQC) materials batches, the action to be taken in case of non-conform IQC results, the choice of external quality assessment (EQA) scheme and interpretation of their results as well as the new issue of analyses performed on several automatic systems available in the same laboratory are discussed. Finally, the concept of measurement uncertainty, the robustness of the methods as well as the specificities of near-patient testing and rapid tests are described. These recommendations cannot apply for all cases we can find in medical laboratories. The implementation of an objective alternative strategy, supported with documented evidence, might be equally considered.     

Searching ClinicalTrials.gov and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform to inform systematic reviews: what are the optimal search approaches?

Background:

Since 2005, International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) member journals have required that clinical trials be registered in publicly available trials registers before they are considered for publication.

Objectives:

The research explores whether it is adequate, when searching to inform systematic reviews, to search for relevant clinical trials using only public trials registers and to identify the optimal search approaches in trials registers.

Methods:

A search was conducted in ClinicalTrials.gov and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) for research studies that had been included in eight systematic reviews. Four search approaches (highly sensitive, sensitive, precise, and highly precise) were performed using the basic and advanced interfaces in both resources.

Results:

On average, 84% of studies were not listed in either resource. The largest number of included studies was retrieved in ClinicalTrials.gov and ICTRP when a sensitive search approach was used in the basic interface. The use of the advanced interface maintained or improved sensitivity in 16 of 19 strategies for Clinicaltrials.gov and 8 of 18 for ICTRP. No single search approach was sensitive enough to identify all studies included in the 6 reviews.

Conclusions:

Trials registers cannot yet be relied upon as the sole means to locate trials for systematic reviews. Trials registers lag behind the major bibliographic databases in terms of their search interfaces.

Implications:

For systematic reviews, trials registers and major bibliographic databases should be searched. Trials registers should be searched using sensitive approaches, and both the registers consulted in this study should be searched.Clinical trials registers such as ClinicalTrials.gov and portals to trials registers such as the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) are increasingly used to identify ongoing or completed clinical trials. These resources offer important information on the methods and progress of trials likely to be of interest to a range of users, including researchers, clinicians, and patients. The extent to which these resources can be relied upon as a sole source of trials for inclusion in systematic reviews, including Cochrane systematic reviews (CSRs), is the subject of the research study reported here. This study also investigates the most efficient ways that librarians, information professionals, and other searchers can search these resources. Search efficiency was investigated by evaluating the overlap and unique yield of searches in the two resources and by testing four search approaches. The tested search approaches ranged from the very precise (single specific condition search term combined with a single specific intervention search term) to the very sensitive (at least two interventions terms).     

College grades and adult achievement: A research synthesis

The present study used meta-analytic methodology to synthesize research on the relationship between college grades and adult achievement. The data for the meta-analysis came from 108 studies correlating grade average in college to various criteria of adult achievement or success. The average correlation between grade average and a composite success criterion was .18, a small effect. Correlations between grade average and eight other criteria of adult achievement were also small, ranging from .09 to .20. Correlational effects were larger in military settings and for studies conducted prior to 1950. The results of this meta-analysis may be somewhat discouraging to those who place a great deal of importance on the predictive value of grades.