English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Background:  With emphasis on evidence-based medical care, ‘evidence’ is often the result of literature reviews. Hence, the critical question, “are literature reviews comprehensive?”    Aim:  This study compares the literature generated by a researcher and a health sciences librarian (HSL).    Methods:  The Research Associate and the HSL conducted a parallel, segregated literature search on ‘patient-centered care’.    Results:  The Research Associate identified 215 manuscripts, and the HSL 129 manuscripts. Overlap was only 55 manuscripts. Differences in process and blind spots are discussed.    Conclusion:  To improve the quality of research outcomes, it seems prudent and ethical to have a synergistic collaboration between researchers and HSLs. Given that this is just one case study that has looked into the issue, further research is strongly encouraged.

Making literature reviews more ethical: a researcher and health sciences librarian collaborative process