Article type
Year
Abstract
Abstract: In this workshop, we will discuss and review at least four potential uses for Field-specific tags and topic lists, as follows:
1. Helping Fields organize their work
Using Field topic lists, each Field can now set up its own classification system for Cochrane reviews and each review, protocol or title in Archie can be tagged to indicate where it sits in that classification. This means that the work of tracking down transitions (title to protocol, withdrawn reviews, changes of title/citation etc.) will be greatly decreased for Fields, since much of it is automated in Archie.
2. Identifying important gaps in The Cochrane Library in order to assist with priority setting
Using a Field’s topics list mapped against a Field’s register of trials can aid in the identification of topics with available trials but no Cochrane reviews. Such topics/titles needing Cochrane reviews can then be disseminated to Field constituent groups. As examples, we will use the complementary medicine related topics of Tai Chi and Yoga, each of which has only one associated Cochrane review but many associated trials in the Field’s register.
3. Helping users navigate through published Cochrane reviews/abstracts
Field-specific topic lists will allow Library users to browse reviews by field-related topics, and limit searches to areas of interest (e.g. child health, complementary medicine).
4. Facilitating interactions between Fields and CRGs
The availability of topic lists along with some of the other features of Archie should help Fields in their interactions with CRGs. In particular, the "Notes" attached to each review (or title or protocol) in Archie will allow Fields to indicate to RGCs whenever they have an interest in participating in the review production process - for example by providing co-authors or peer reviewers.
We will also discuss challenges in developing Field topic lists, including deciding which reviews should be included within the Field’s scope, developing the structured list of Field-specific topics, and determining where the reviews should be placed in the Field-specific topic list. Possible approaches for addressing these challenges will be discussed, based on lessons learned in the development of the Complementary Medicine Field topic list.
1. Helping Fields organize their work
Using Field topic lists, each Field can now set up its own classification system for Cochrane reviews and each review, protocol or title in Archie can be tagged to indicate where it sits in that classification. This means that the work of tracking down transitions (title to protocol, withdrawn reviews, changes of title/citation etc.) will be greatly decreased for Fields, since much of it is automated in Archie.
2. Identifying important gaps in The Cochrane Library in order to assist with priority setting
Using a Field’s topics list mapped against a Field’s register of trials can aid in the identification of topics with available trials but no Cochrane reviews. Such topics/titles needing Cochrane reviews can then be disseminated to Field constituent groups. As examples, we will use the complementary medicine related topics of Tai Chi and Yoga, each of which has only one associated Cochrane review but many associated trials in the Field’s register.
3. Helping users navigate through published Cochrane reviews/abstracts
Field-specific topic lists will allow Library users to browse reviews by field-related topics, and limit searches to areas of interest (e.g. child health, complementary medicine).
4. Facilitating interactions between Fields and CRGs
The availability of topic lists along with some of the other features of Archie should help Fields in their interactions with CRGs. In particular, the "Notes" attached to each review (or title or protocol) in Archie will allow Fields to indicate to RGCs whenever they have an interest in participating in the review production process - for example by providing co-authors or peer reviewers.
We will also discuss challenges in developing Field topic lists, including deciding which reviews should be included within the Field’s scope, developing the structured list of Field-specific topics, and determining where the reviews should be placed in the Field-specific topic list. Possible approaches for addressing these challenges will be discussed, based on lessons learned in the development of the Complementary Medicine Field topic list.