Abstract
Evidence-based dentistry (EBD) was officially recognized in the United States in 2001 with the adoption of the American Dental Association's (ADA's) Policy on Evidence-Based Dentistry, which provided a definition of EBD and clearly defined guidelines. EBD's recognition has since grown, and, in 2006, ADA's representative, Daniel Meyer, stated, “the need for an evidence-based approach to oral healthcare and the practice of dentistry is greater than ever” [1]. In this spirit and in the same year, the Alumni Medical Library at Boston University joined the Boston University School of Dental Medicine's (BUSDM's) initiative to strengthen the role of EBD in its curriculum. The library's efforts focused specifically on the first two steps of the ADA's EBD process: (1) defining a clinically relevant question and (2) conducting searches for evidence [2], as these steps call for library-related information skills. This article describes the role of the library in helping BUSDM faculty and students find the evidence to be successful EBD practitioners.
Highlights
One of the earliest lists of recommended medical texts for libraries was Brandon’s biennial ‘‘Selected List of Print Books and Journals for the Small Medical Library’’, which supported the concept of a ‘‘core’’ collection of essential medical texts [1]
When Cogdill and Moore studied the resources used by first-year medical students, they found that textbooks were among the most highly consulted, concluding that ‘‘librarians serving the information needs of medical students cannot overlook the importance of textbooks, increasingly available in both print and electronic formats’’ [4]
This study focused on use of e-books versus printed books in the reference/core collection to help plan the future of the onsite reference/core collection and to provide data to assist in collection development and retention decisions
Summary
One of the earliest lists of recommended medical texts for libraries was Brandon’s biennial ‘‘Selected List of Print Books and Journals for the Small Medical Library’’ (later referred to as the Brandon/Hill list), which supported the concept of a ‘‘core’’ collection of essential medical texts [1]. This well-respected list became a standard collection development tool for most medical libraries, and many of the recommended titles were often moved to libraries’ noncirculating collections [2]. The data could support decisions about relocating print copies, as well as identify subject areas needing further evaluation due to either increased or decreased usage
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
