ORCID Annual Report 2018

If you are interested in learning more about how ORCID continues to grow and establish itself as an important resource for the global research community, be sure to check out the ORCID Annual Report for 2018, published on March 6th, 2019.

Meadows, Alice; Laurel, Haak; Buster, Michael; Brown, Josh; Buys, Matthew; Demeranville, Tom; et al. (2019): ORCID Annual Report 2018. https://doi.org/10.23640/07243.7811459.v1

There is also a blog post summarizing some of their key achievements, including reaching their 5 millionth registrant milestone in mid-2018. According to the full report: “as of 31 December 2018, 5,806,563 researchers from every country and discipline had registered for an ORCID iD.”

Of particular interest to MSK authors may be the fact that publishers (see page 11) continue to join ORCID, with eight more being added in 2018,bringing the total to 105 (including 35 associations that are currently using — or planning to use — ORCID in publishing workflows).”

Also noteworthy: “by the end of 2018, with the researchers’ permission, 36,833,675 works had been added to ORCID records, 23,661,921 of which had been added by members.” To put this into perspective, (as of Feb 6, 2019) “PubMed comprises over 29 million citations for biomedical literature from MEDLINE, life science journals, and online books.” As such, the number of overall works cited in ORCID now exceeds the number of citations indexed in PubMed.

For those wondering how most works end up getting into ORCID, this data from the annual report may provide some useful insight: “The top organizations adding works to ORCID records are: Scopus (10,532,602), ResearcherID (4,521,258), Crossref — via two integrations: auto-update and their Search & Link wizard — (3,476,929), and Europe PubMed Central (1,921,838).  In other words, high quality citation records from databases like Scopus, Web of Science (i.e., ReasearcherID), and Europe PMC provide a considerable amount of the citation information.

Crossref, itself a not-for-profit membership organization and one that researchers/authors may be less familiar with, is a utility resource that works with many publishers to supply metadata (among other things) for scholarly works. What this means for authors is that by providing publishers with an ORCID iD at the time of manuscript submission, they are increasing the chance that the subsequent publication later will become connected to the author’s ORCID profile (with their permission), generally thanks to Crossref.

With all of this progress, it is not surprising that more and more organizations are getting on board with ORCID. From the annual report (page 12): “Support for the publishers’ ORCID open letter continues to grow, and, as of the end of 2018, there were 70 signatory organizations, 23 of which are now requiring iDs for authors”.

So if you have not registered for one yet – your publisher may require you to have one the next time you proceed to submit a manuscript for publication. You’re therefore encouraged to use ORCID@MSK to register for one. Please see the MSK Library’s ORCID information page or Ask Us if you have any questions.

Drug Information Sources & their Mobile Apps

There are a number of drug information resources, some available via subscription and some freely-available, that are now accessible both via Internet browser and via mobile apps.

For example:

  1. Lexicomp Online (Wolters Kluwer) which “provides access to the approved drugs and dosage forms used at Memorial Sloan Kettering (Hospital Formulary). The Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committee selects drugs for addition to the Hospital Formulary based on therapeutic efficacy, toxicity, and cost.” The Lexicomp mobile app can be downloaded at no charge.
  2. The Lexicomp clinical content can also be accessed from within UpToDate. Please note that as of 2019, the MSK Library’s subscription to UpToDate has been upgraded to UpToDate Anywhere, which allows for remote access to this resource. Users have the option to either install the UpToDate Mobile App (on up to two devices free of charge) or to use UpToDate’s Mobile Web (for which there is nothing to install).
  3. Micromedex (Truven) is an “evidence-based source for drug dosage, drug interactions, and side effects information”. Like Lexicomp Online, it also contains some patient education materials. The Micromedex app can also be downloaded to a mobile device.
  4. Drug Information Portal (National Library of Medicine) “provides a gateway to selected drug information from the U.S. National Library of Medicine (NLM) and other key U.S. Government agencies. Many foreign drugs and medications are also covered in the resource.” This resource does not have a downloadable app but it does have a specially-designed mobile site.
  5. Drug@FDA (Federal Drug Administration) “contains the list of FDA-approved oncology drugs and regulatory information”. The Drugs@FDA Express app can be downloaded.

Find out more about these tools and how they compare to each other from these articles from the library & information science literature:

Chatfield, Amy J.. “Lexicomp Online and Micromedex 2.0Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA vol. 103,2 (2015): 112–113.

Patel, Risha I and Robert D Beckett. “Evaluation of resources for analyzing drug interactionsJournal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA vol. 104,4 (2016): 290-295.

Vaughan, K T L et al. “An evaluation of pharmacogenomic information provided by five common drug information resourcesJournal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA vol. 102,1 (2014): 47-51.

If you have any questions about drug information resources or any other MSK Library databases, please feel free to Ask Us!

Specialized PRISMA Reporting Guidelines

It has been almost a decade since the publication in mid-2009 of the “Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses” statement, more commonly referred to as the PRISMA statement, which replaced the QUOROM (Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses) statement published ten years before, in 1999.

1: Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG; PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009 Jul 21;6(7):e1000097. PMID: 19621072;  PMCID: PMC2707599.

2: Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, Olkin I, Rennie D, Stroup DF. Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses. Lancet. 1999 Nov 27;354(9193):1896-900. PMID: 10584742.

Standardizing and improving the quality of reporting methods benefits everyone. PRISMA makes it easier for researchers to strive for and achieve more completeness in their reporting of systematic reviews, which in turn makes it easier for readers of published systematic reviews to obtain a more complete picture of the research that was carried out, increasing the likelihood that they will trust – and therefore make use of – the reported results.

Continue reading