Search

Trip Database Blog

Liberating the literature

Author

jrbtrip

What people are saying about the new site

We’ve had a fair bit of feedback on the new site so I thought I’d share it and respond to a few comments. And, as means of an update, we’re working on a ‘snagging’ list of things that need fixing. With a good wind, we’ll move the new site over by the end of May.

The vast majority of users found it easy or very easy to use and a similar number felt confident in using the new system although a few people fed back that they’ll need a bit of time to understand all the changes (BTW this key might help).

When we asked specifically what they liked, this was the sort of feedback:

  • Colours
  • Shift to the left-hand side of the ‘filter by evidence type’ – nice to see as it was a major worry for me!

Some specific comments being:

Pretty much all of it. Particularly the quality rating for the primary studies.”
“Beautiful and simple

When asked what they disliked:

  • ‘Nothing’ was, thankfully, a common response
  • Access to certain features (eg Latest and Greatest, LibKey) – these we’re dealing with in our ‘snagging list’
  • Evidence maps – this is not a feature we’re going to retain for now. It served a purpose, but it’s out of date, things have moved on and I’d want to reinstate it if we had the resource to do it properly!
  • Evidence pyramids – I feel your pain, it was something we gave up as part of the wider redesign ‘look and feel’

It’s not too late to give feedback yourself, please use this form.

And, finally, an important issue is that the new site has not crashed once πŸ™‚

Feedback on the new site please

Our new site is in beta version (try it here https://labs2020.tripdatabase.com/Home) and we’re pretty close to working through the issues raised in beta-testing.

However, we want as much feedback as possible so please, after trying the new site, please complete this form to let us know what you think.

Guideline grading is getting there

We’ve been working on this for a while (eg Grading guidelines, an update). Well the grading has continued and we’ve now graded over 250 guideline producers covering the vast majority of the guideline we cover.

The grading is a score from 0-8, with 8 being the highest score (click here for an explanation of the scoring system) and the distribution is as follows:

Y-axis is the score while the X-axis is the number of producers scoring that particular score. So, around 50 producers score the maximum 8!

Nearly 50% score 7 or 8, which is encouraging. Lots also score 0 and this likely reflects the inaccessibility of methods for us to score. Their guideline might be great (seems unlikely) but if a user can’t see the methods how can they assess the ‘worth’ of the guideline?

Once we get the new site properly launched we can move on to introducing this πŸ™‚

The new site has arrived

After an enormous amount of work and testing we have released the new site in beta mode! Given the huge rewrite of code and irrespective of all the testing, we felt it was a big risk to simply replace the current/old site with the new one. So, for a short period of time they’ll run in parallel with a link from the top of the current/old site:

Alternatively you can simply go directly to the new site here: https://labs2020.tripdatabase.com/Home

This takes you to the homepage (this one being for Pro subscribers, free users get a green colour scheme):

And here is the Pro results page:

Where to start with the changes?

Possibly the biggest change has been the shift of the filter by evidence type from the right to the left of the results page. I was remarkably attached to the old way, but our designer convinced me of the shift.

Other than that the design has been cleaned up and there are some new icons:

Lots of other things to explore and click on (for instance the coloured ‘lozenges’ highlighting the evidence type – go on, click on one of them).

So, please go and try it now (via https://labs2020.tripdatabase.com/Home) and let us know what you think via our feedback form. We’ve already received some feedback and they’re being worked on, thankfully most of them appear to be minor. Alternatively contact me directly: jon.brassey@tripdatabase.com, it’s always great to hear from you!

Where have we been?

I can’t believe it, we’re heading towards the end of February and this is our first post of the year. The main reason being there has been no obvious news to reveal. However, we’ve been really busy behind the scenes with the new site. It is imminent, just not sure when exactly, we’re ironing out one outstanding issue!

When ready we will not replace the old site, we will run the two concurrently. Users going to the site will see the usual site with a link to the new site, with an invite to ‘try the beta’. Given the huge rewrite it just seems sensible to gently ease in to the new version.

Grading guidelines, an update

The original Grading guidelines post is nearly a year old and things have not moved smoothly – not only did Covid happen but also there was the rewrite of the website that took most of 2020! But we’ve not abandoned our wish to ‘grade’ guidelines to help our users with an indication of how ‘evidence-based’ the guidelines are. Our system scores each guideline producer (based on the system mentioned in the earlier post), with a maximum score of 8.

We have now graded around two-thirds of the guidelines and that figure is rapidly increasing. Our hope is to introduce the guideline system early in 2021 (but after the relaunch of the newly coded site)!

For interest we share a distribution of the guideline scores below:

28% get the maximum score of 8 with score of 0 (15%) and 7 (14%) being next most ‘popular’. So, many are being serious about producing evidence-based guidelines but also many seem seriously less inclined!! One clarification point is that a number of the zero scores are based on an inability to find any detail of the methodology employed. They may be great guidelines; they’re just not making is easy for us (or others) to find out!

Article networks, again

I love generating these network maps and I keep returning to these over the years.

The above is a map based on a sample of articles on Covid-19. Each article is represented by a node (grey circle) and the edges (lines of various colours) represent connections between them. The project was to explore ways of grouping documents with a view to speeding up evidence reviews. In this work the connections were (a) semantic and (b) citation.

What is clear is that the articles group around topics. But given the experimental nature of the work, the small sample and imperfect data I’m loathed to draw any firms conclusions but I am taking it as another endorsement of this approach, one I want to explore next year.

But how might such knowledge be useful? Here are a few and I’d be delighted to hear of any other suggestions:

  • Improve search 1 – if a user clicks on an article in a distinct cluster you can immediately highlight the closest other articles.
  • Improve search 2 – when someone searches you could highlight the distinct clusters and use it as a form of search refinement. So, using the above diagram, a user might have searched for Covid and we could highlight the three clusters.
  • Improve search 3 – a user might select 10 of the articles in a cluster but miss an article – we could flag this up.
  • Better intelligence – we could monitor the clusters and see when new articles become joined. We could then alert users who had interacted, previously, with the cluster.
  • Rapid reviews – we could highlight all the RCTs and/or systematic reviews in a cluster and start to extract value from each trial (e.g. risk of bias, sample size).

When we roll it out we will be able to include a third type of connection – clickstream data – which we’ve previously demonstrated to be incredibly powerful.Β It’s at times like this I wish we had a sizeable R&D budget

 

What are health professionals searching for in relation to COVID-19? Update 4

Our fourth update on this topic, the last one being in April! I have yet to see any other attempt at highlighting the information/search needs of health professionals, so if you know of any please let me know.

Below are the top 15 search terms used alongside searches for Covid-19 (or synonyms). This is a crude list with no attempt to reconcile synonymous entries.

  1. diagnosis
  2. PPE or masks
  3. chloroquine
  4. pregnancy
  5. screening
  6. interferon
  7. chloroquine OR hydrochloroquine
  8. surgery
  9. dentistry
  10. vaccine
  11. antibiotics
  12. azithromycin
  13. treatment
  14. vitamin d
  15. ivermectin

So, what’s changed?

Firstly, diagnosis is now in top spot…

Secondly, there are increases on the topics of vaccines, vitamin d and ivermectin.

Lastly, there seems to be tailing off of searches on the topic. The graph below shows a cumulative total of searches for Covid-19 (and synonyms) – that’s the thick blue line. The dashed yellow line is a trend line based on the first months of the pandemic.Β 

The new site is getting closer

The new site is getting ready for testing…

No new functionality, just modernising the code to reflect modern web standards. It’s been a mammoth effort and once released we’ll be able to move much more quickly with new features – and we have a big list of these πŸ™‚

As well as the reprogramming we’ve taken the opportunity to refresh the design. Again, this is subject to testers feedback and alteration. But here’s a very enigmatic sneak preview:

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑