Comorbidity of dementia and age-related macular degeneration calls for clinical awareness: a meta-analysis.

AIM: To determine the association between dementia and age-related macular degeneration (AMD) using meta-analysis. METHODS: We searched in the MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Knowledge, PsycInfo and Cochrane database of systematic reviews for studies published from March 1959 to March 2018. We included cross-sectional, case-control and cohort studies that evaluated the association of dementia/Alzheimer's disease (AD) with AMD (as outcome) and the association of AMD with dementia/AD (as outcome). Studies that compared cognitive functions between AMD and controls were also included. The summary outcomes, namely odds ratio (OR), relative risk, mean differences and corresponding 95% CIs, were estimated using random effects models. We performed sensitivity analysis based on study quality and individual study effect to control for potential biases. RESULTS: Among 2159 citation records, we identified 21 studies consisting of 7 876 499 study subjects for meta-analysis. Patients with dementia (padjusted≤0.017, OR≥1.24, I2≤9%) or AD (p=0.001, ORunadjusted=2.22, I2=50%) were at risk for AMD, particularly for late AMD (padjusted<0.001, OR=1.37, I2=0). AMD was also significantly associated with increased risk of AD/cognitive impairment (padjusted=0.037, OR=2.42, I2=38%). Moreover, patients with AMD had poorer cognitive functions when compared with controls, including Mini-Mental State Examination (p<0.001, I2≤79%) and Trail Making Test A (p<0.001, I2=0). Sensitivity analysis and Egger's test indicated our results were less likely biased. CONCLUSIONS: A significant association between dementia/AD and AMD calls for greater clinical awareness. The cost-effectiveness of routine screening for the other condition in patients with primary diagnosis of dementia/AD or AMD requires further study.

Vignettes: Diverse library staff offering diverse bioinformatics services.

OBJECTIVES: The paper gives examples of the bioinformatics services provided in a variety of different libraries by librarians with a broad range of educational background and training. METHODS: Two investigators sent an email inquiry to attendees of the "National Center for Biotechnology Information's (NCBI) Introduction to Molecular Biology Information Resources" or "NCBI Advanced Workshop for Bioinformatics Information Specialists (NAWBIS)" courses. The thirty-five-item questionnaire addressed areas such as educational background, library setting, types and numbers of users served, and bioinformatics training and support services provided. Answers were compiled into program vignettes. DISCUSSION: The bioinformatics support services addressed in the paper are based in libraries with academic and clinical settings. Services have been established through different means: in collaboration with biology faculty as part of formal courses, through teaching workshops in the library, through one-on-one consultations, and by other methods. Librarians with backgrounds from art history to doctoral degrees in genetics have worked to establish these programs. CONCLUSION: Successful bioinformatics support programs can be established in libraries in a variety of different settings and by staff with a variety of different backgrounds and approaches.

Carving a niche: establishing bioinformatics collaborations.

OBJECTIVES: The paper describes collaborations and partnerships developed between library bioinformatics programs and other bioinformatics-related units at four academic institutions. METHODS: A call for information on bioinformatics partnerships was made via email to librarians who have participated in the National Center for Biotechnology Information's Advanced Workshop for Bioinformatics Information Specialists. Librarians from Harvard University, the University of Florida, the University of Minnesota, and Vanderbilt University responded and expressed willingness to contribute information on their institutions, programs, services, and collaborating partners. Similarities and differences in programs and collaborations were identified. RESULTS: The four librarians have developed partnerships with other units on their campuses that can be categorized into the following areas: knowledge management, instruction, and electronic resource support. All primarily support freely accessible electronic resources, while other campus units deal with fee-based ones. These demarcations are apparent in resource provision as well as in subsequent support and instruction. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Through environmental scanning and networking with colleagues, librarians who provide bioinformatics support can develop fruitful collaborations. Visibility is key to building collaborations, as is broad-based thinking in terms of potential partners.