Evaluating Clinical Laboratory Publications: Trade, Peer-Reviewed, & Websites Cathleen J. Pham SFSU / CLS 706 / Fall 2010

TRADE Publication: Medical Laboratory Observers, August 2009, Vol. 41, No. 8 Title: “H1N1 warns of public-health deficiencies” – The title is captivating and practical. It describes the article’s content. – SCORE = 2 Author: Scott J. Becker, MS – A brief biography is provided about the author. He is the executive director for the Association of Public Health Laboratories and is responsible for APHL programmatic and fiscal operations, as well as for policy development and strategy. – SCORE = 2 Content: The content was written for laboratory management and interested laboratory professionals. The article has an organized structure and explains all background information needed to understand its purpose. – SCORE = 2 Credibility: Based on his biography, the author is an expert on this topic. Little to no bias was detected as he provides examples for all of his arguments. – SCORE = 2 References: Besides his biography, no additional references were provided. – SCORE = 1  TOTAL POINTS = 9 – The article was enlightening and worth reading.

Scientific Peer-Reviewed: Antiviral Research 82 (2009), Title: “Rapid identification of oseltamivir-resistant influenza A(H1N1) viruses with H274y mutation by RT-PCR/restriction fragment length polymorphism assay” – Although lengthy, the title was objective and provided a concise overview of the article’s contents. – SCORE = 2 Abstract: Like the title, the abstract was concise and clearly stated the significance of the research. – SCORE = 2 Introduction: It provided relevant background – current statistics, drugs, policies, methods, etc. – to comprehend the purpose of the research. – SCORE = 2 Discussion/Conclusion: The discussion compares the proposed method with currently employed methods and effectively proves its importance in the field. – SCORE = 2 Acknowledgements: The research was done in collaboration with numerous local and state public health laboratories as well as the would Health Global Influenza Surveillance Network. The research compares practical parameters such as turn- around-time and cost. Therefore, bias was not detected. – SCORE = 2  TOTAL POINTS = 10 – This article was an educational and rewarding read.

Website: Author/owner: US government – This website is maintained by several government divisions and organizations. – SCORE = 2 Objective: This site was designed to inform, educate, and influence the general public, health and emergency preparedness professionals, policy makers, government and business leaders, school systems, and local communities. – SCORE = 2 Content: This site provided a great deal of well-referenced and specific information about influenza and how to engage in preventative activity. Information was well- organized and readily accessible. – SCORE = 2 Credibility: Information came from government sites, research journals/institutions, and other reliable associations. Therefore, bias was minimal and credibility was excellent. – SCORE = 2 References or other links: Most information was referenced. Several links were provided for further information. – SCORE = 2  TOTAL POINTS = 10 This website is an excellent influenza resource.

Website: Author/owner: Dave Roberts – The author of the website is an individual, who has studied infectious disease from a patient perspective for over 5 years and has had over 1 million visitors to another of his websites. No information was provided about the author’s professional or academic credentials. – SCORE = 1 Objective: This site was designed to inform and keep interested readers up-to-date. – SCORE = 2 Content: The site lacked organization, making the information relatively inaccessible. Although the site highlighted interesting topics, it was hard to grasp specific ideas and facts. – SCORE = 1 Credibility: Credibility was questionable because information about the author was obscure and there were no statements of author’s affiliation with any professional organizations. In spite of this, there are articles from esteemed research journals and organizations. – SCORE = 1 References or other links: References for all articles were provided. However, some referenced articles came from unreliable sources. – SCORE = 1  TOTAL POINTS = 6 – This website was a good idea that did not come together as planned. It was difficult to develop strong ideas as information was, for the most part, scattered. Furthermore, the site’s minimal organization indicates that articles compiled were selected haphazardly; I could have easily opted for a more consistent and dependable source.