MLSCI 320

1
MLSCI 320

• Library
• Writing
• Critical analysis

2
Presentation Literature Review
scientific paper presentation
literature review
3
High level goals of MLSCI 320

• Analysis Communication
• of Biomedical Information
• Write a
• literature review
• Develop
• presentation skills

4
Literature Review L.O.

• Extract informationorganize it
• Give a context to researchbackground info
• Identify and summarize what is important
• Write a literature review concise
• Critically analyse

5
Roadmap

• Literature review
• Structure content
• Process
• Evaluation
• Scientific paper mini-lit review

6
Literature Review

• Everything takes longer than
• you think it will

7

• Literature review (pp.4-5)
• Structure/Content

• Introduction
• Report
• subheadings
• summary of findings
• concurrent analysis
• Conclusion
• Focus on purpose of a literature review
• Present current significant knowledge about a
  defined topic.

8
Introduction

• -- take notes --
• 1-5 paragraphs
• Explain why topic is significant
• Define key terms/concepts
• Specify scope of search (yrs/DBs)

9
Scope - 2nd last para of Intro (OR separate
Methods section)

• database years - search terms other sources
• Example
• A search of the MEDLINE database (January 1966 to
  January 2004) using PubMed was conducted using
  the combined terms pretransfusion testingAND
  antibody screen AND crossmatch." A search was
  also done of automation AND transfusion
  service. A manual search was conducted of the
  bibliographies of two transfusion medicine
  textbooks1,2 and a hematology textbook.3 The
  references of all review articles were searched
  manually. Non-English papers and unpublished
  material were not included.

10
Intro (last sentence in last para)

• .The purpose of this review is to evaluate which
  antibody screen methods are most easily automated
  and to assess the cost impact of automated
  pretransfusion testing on transfusion services.

11
Report (subheads ? outline)structure varies
with purpose
Automated antibody detection in the transfusion
service

• 1.Traditional methods
• Saline
• Albumin
• LISS
• 2.Newer methods
• PEG
• Gel
• SPAA

• 3. Method comparison
• Sensitivity
• Specificity
• 4. Potential for automation
• Preconditions
• Advantages
• Limitations
• 5. Cost assessment

12
Report content (p.4)

• Summarize papers
• Analyse results
• Compare/contrast
• Discuss threats/confounders
• by subtopics lt -- gtoutline

13
Summarize- analyze (Ex. Method comparison)

• Specificity
• .Unlike Shapkin,15 Judd et al. found that
  LISS had good specificity. 16 However, the
  samples in the Judd study had been frozen for up
  to 5 years, whereas Shapkin tested samples less
  than 72 hours old. Sawchuk concludes that gel has
  poor specificity17, but most researchers report
  that gel has better specificity than traditional
  methods. 16,18-20 Sawchuk tested many cold
  autoantibodies known to affect specificity.
• SPAA is acknowledged as having the poorest
  specificity because it is the most sensitive and
  specificity and sensitivity are inversely
  related. 21

14
Conclusion (p.5)

• Synthesize all results big picture
• Known, unknown, controversial
• So-what statement
• Further study
• Conclusion should answer questions/objectives in
  Introduction
• The purpose of this review is to evaluate which
  antibody screen methods are most easily automated
  and to assess the cost impact of automated
  pretransfusion testing on transfusion services.

15
Conclusion (Ex. Method comparison)

• Of the newer methods only gel and SPAA can be
  automated. However,each method has limitations,
  including problems with interfacing with
  laboratory information systems. Which system is
  more cost effective is controversial because cost
  depends on negotiated variables such as vendors
  offering free hardware or inexpensive maintenance
  contracts. As well, how much staffing can be
  reduced (the major cost component) has not yet
  been demonstrated for either system. Accordingly,
  data showing cost effectiveness of automation
  using gel and SPAA do not exist. Despite lack of
  costing evidence, automated methods for both gel
  and SPAA continue to be implemented in
  laboratories worldwide. More studies are needed
  to assess their cost effectiveness and long term
  impact on laboratory operations.

16
Best advice use models

• Read 1-2 review papers
• Wilson K,Code C, Ricketts MN. Risk of acquiring
  Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease from blood
  transfusions systematic review of case-control
  studies. Br Med J 200032117-9.
• www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/321/7252/17
• Will send in e-mail

17
Lit review - process (pp. 6-10)

• Overview (get clued in)
• textbooks, reviews, editorials
• instructors, profs, lab directors
• Find relevant, current papers
• library skills
• dry run before choosing paper
• consider if paper can generate a good lit review
  topic

18
More process

• Manage data
• Note-taking (summarize - paraphrase)
• List of questions to ask (Appendix 5)
• Prepare outline
• Run it by instructors
• Write draft 1
• Review model papers for ideas

19
Process - critically analyse (p.9)

• Review CA module
• Compare and contrast
• Samples, sizes, study designs, time, place
• Identify potential confounders
• Summarize big picture

20
Revise paper (Evaluation p.11)

• Organized? (review outline)
• Format (components, sub-headings)
• Clear? (ask a friend)
• Concise? (pass by brutal friend)
• Literature (current, comprehensive?)
• Critical analysis? (Did I summarize, compare?)
• Grammar and spelling
• Nuts and bolts
• References, font size, double spaced, margins,
  etc.

21
Nuts and bolts (parameters p.5)

• Title page
• 8-12 pages, exc.
• title page
• tables, figures
• references
• Double-spaced
• 2.5 cm margins
• 12 point font

Role of the Laboratory in Point-of-Care Testing
Jane Doe MLSCI 320 April 8, 2004
22
Technical paper (for presentation)
Scientific paper
Review paper
?
23
Evaluation of MagicKitTM

• Usefulness of MagicKitTM
• in an outpatient setting
• History of POCT
• Studies on MagicKitTM
• Regulatory and QC issues
• POCT adv/disadv
• Trends in POCT

Role of laboratory in POCT Background on
POCT Comparison of personnel Factors affecting
accuracy Implementation issues Role of laboratory
24
DNA typing in transfused patients

• Use of DNA methods in
• transfusion medicine
• Serologic methods
• DNA applications
• Red cell typing
• Platelet and HLA typing
• Paternity disputes
• Infectious disease screening
• Advantages
• Limitations
• Future directions

Application of DNA methods to hemolytic disease
of the newborn Background on HDN Historical
perspective Serologic testing Antenatal testing
(PUBS) Genetics of Rh BGS DNA methods for D
typing Advantages Limitations International trends
25
Bottom line
Is the paper a legitimate
reference in the review?

• Scientific paper
• Review paper

?

• Title of review
• Description (few sentences)
• Confirm literature check

26
Role of literature review

• Identify what is known/unknown
• Reveal big picture
• Put research in context

27
Tips
?
Library module Evidence of industrious
search? Current literature?
28
Writing module

• Is paper well organized?
• Are all components there?
• Intro, how search done, purpose?
• Conform to specified format?
• Well written?
• Concise?
• Paraphrased?
• Subheadings?
• Vancouver style?

29
Critical analysis module

• Is there any evidence that author thought about
  the research or did info go from the journal page
  to the lit review without passing through the
  mind of the
• student?

30
Summary

• Library...
• Writing
• Critical Analysis
• Prelude to Phase 3 research project
• proposal
• literature review
• scientific paper
• present paper

Presentation Review Paper
31
Goals of MLSCI 320

• Write a
• literature review
• Develop
• presentation skills

library
writing
literature review
critical analysis
presentation
32
The schedule...

• Presentation
• Today
• Pick numbers
• Nov. 20 (Jen)
• Discuss presentation module
• Choose papers
• Nov.27 (Jen Rosemarie)
• Search strategies
• 2004
• Jan. 8-15-22
• Presentation skills (JM)
• Feedback (RC/CW)
• Advanced search (librarian)
• Jan.29Youre on!

• Assignments
• CA 1 today
• CA 2 Nov.27

• Literature Review
• Due 3 wks after talk
• Mar. 4 1-9
• Apr. 1 10-18
• Apr. 18 others
• p. 3

33
The questions...
?
34
(No Transcript)