Roles for librarians in systematic reviews: a scoping review
12 Jan 2018-Journal of The Medical Library Association (Medical Library Association)-Vol. 106, Iss: 1, pp 46-56
TL;DR: 18 different roles filled by librarians and other information professionals in conducting systematic reviews from 310 different articles, book chapters, and presented papers and posters are identified.
Abstract: Objective: What roles do librarians and information professionals play in conducting systematic reviews? Librarians are increasingly called upon to be involved in systematic reviews, but no study has considered all the roles that librarians can perform. This inventory of existing and emerging roles aids in defining librarians’ systematic reviews services. Methods: For this scoping review, the authors conducted controlled vocabulary and text-word searches in the PubMed; Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts; and CINAHL databases. We separately searched for articles published in the Journal of the European Association for Health Information and Libraries, Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, the Journal of the Canadian Heath Libraries Association, and Hypothesis. We also text-word searched Medical Library Association annual meeting poster and paper abstracts. Results: We identified 18 different roles filled by librarians and other information professionals in conducting systematic reviews from 310 different articles, book chapters, and presented papers and posters. Some roles were well known such as searching, source selection, and teaching. Other less documented roles included planning, question formulation, and peer review. We summarize these different roles and provide an accompanying bibliography of references for in-depth descriptions of these roles. Conclusion: Librarians play central roles in systematic review teams, including roles that go beyond searching. This scoping review should encourage librarians who are fulfilling roles that are not captured here to document their roles in journal articles and poster and paper presentations. This article has been approved for the Medical Library Association’s Independent Reading Program .
Citations
More filters
01 Jun 2017
268 citations
TL;DR: Defining review types and utilising appropriate search methods remain challenging and by familiarising themselves with a range of review methodologies and associated search methods, information specialists will be better equipped to select suitable approaches for future projects.
Abstract: Background and objectives
The last decade has witnessed increased recognition of the value of literature reviews for advancing understanding and decision making. This has been accompanied by an expansion in the range of methodological approaches and types of review. However, there remains uncertainty over definitions and search requirements beyond those for the ‘traditional’ systematic review. This study aims to characterise health related reviews by type and to provide recommendations on appropriate methods of information retrieval based on the available guidance.
Methods
A list of review types was generated from published typologies and categorised into ‘families’ based on their common features. Guidance on information retrieval for each review type was identified by searching pubmed, medline and Google Scholar, supplemented by scrutinising websites of review producing organisations.
Results
Forty‐eight review types were identified and categorised into seven families. Published guidance reveals increasing specification of methods for information retrieval; however, much of it remains generic with many review types lacking explicit requirements for the identification of evidence.
Conclusions
Defining review types and utilising appropriate search methods remain challenging. By familiarising themselves with a range of review methodologies and associated search methods, information specialists will be better equipped to select suitable approaches for future projects.
181 citations
TL;DR: It is essential to plan the search strategy carefully, which includes consulting the MeSH database to identify the concepts and choose all appropriate terms, both descriptors and synonyms, and combining search techniques in the free-text and controlled-language fields, truncating the terms appropriately to retrieve all their variants.
Abstract: Objectives: Errors in search strategies negatively affect the quality and validity of systematic reviews. The primary objective of this study was to evaluate searches performed in MEDLINE/PubMed to identify errors and determine their effects on information retrieval. Methods: A PubMed search was conducted using the systematic review filter to identify articles that were published in January of 2018. Systematic reviews or meta-analyses were selected from a systematic search for literature containing reproducible and explicit search strategies in MEDLINE/PubMed. Data were extracted from these studies related to ten types of errors and to the terms and phrases search modes. Results: The study included 137 systematic reviews in which the number of search strategies containing some type of error was very high (92.7%). Errors that affected recall were the most frequent (78.1%), and the most common search errors involved missing terms in both natural language and controlled language and those related to Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) search terms and the non-retrieval of their more specific terms. Conclusions: To improve the quality of searches and avoid errors, it is essential to plan the search strategy carefully, which includes consulting the MeSH database to identify the concepts and choose all appropriate terms, both descriptors and synonyms, and combining search techniques in the free-text and controlled-language fields, truncating the terms appropriately to retrieve all their variants.
101 citations
15 Sep 2019
TL;DR: A revisao sistematica e uma modalidade de pesquisa, which segue protocolos especificos and busca dar alguma logicidade a um grande corpus documental, can be found in this paper.
Abstract: Realizar uma revisao sistematica de literatura vai alem da atividade usual de fazer uma revisao de literatura como parte de um trabalho de pesquisa academica. A revisao sistematica e uma modalidade de pesquisa, que segue protocolos especificos e busca dar alguma logicidade a um grande corpus documental. Este artigo apresenta os aspectos essenciais no desenvolvimento de revisoes sistematicas da literatura. Apos a conceituacao e apresentacao dos diferentes tipos de revisao sistematica, sao abordadas as etapas de sua producao, desde a delimitacao da questao de pesquisa, a selecao das bases de dados, a elaboracao da estrategia de busca, a selecao dos documentos e a sistematizacao dos resultados. Por fim, sao abordados aspectos relacionados a divulgacao e publicacao de revisoes sistematicas de literatura. A compreensao desses aspectos e essencial nao apenas para autores desse tipo de pesquisa, mas tambem para revisores e editores de periodicos de todas as areas do conhecimento.
70 citations
TL;DR: Very low quality evidence suggests that educational programs for teaching SDM to medical trainees are viewed as satisfactory and have a small impact on knowledge and comfort with SDM.
27 citations
References
More filters
TL;DR: An Explanation and Elaboration of the PRISMA Statement is presented and updated guidelines for the reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses are presented.
Abstract: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarize evidence relating to efficacy and safety of health care interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, is not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to clinicians, policy makers, and other users.
Since the development of the QUOROM (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analysis) Statement—a reporting guideline published in 1999—there have been several conceptual, methodological, and practical advances regarding the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Also, reviews of published systematic reviews have found that key information about these studies is often poorly reported. Realizing these issues, an international group that included experienced authors and methodologists developed PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) as an evolution of the original QUOROM guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of evaluations of health care interventions.
The PRISMA Statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram. The checklist includes items deemed essential for transparent reporting of a systematic review. In this Explanation and Elaboration document, we explain the meaning and rationale for each checklist item. For each item, we include an example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature. The PRISMA Statement, this document, and the associated Web site (http://www.prisma-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
25,711 citations
"Roles for librarians in systematic ..." refers background in this paper
...Both recommend adherence to the PRISMA statement [38]....
[...]
TL;DR: Few review types possess prescribed and explicit methodologies and many fall short of being mutually exclusive, but this typology provides a valuable reference point for those commissioning, conducting, supporting or interpreting reviews, both within health information and the wider health care domain.
Abstract: Background and objectives : The expansion of evidence-based practice across sectors has lead to an increasing variety of review types. However, the diversity of terminology used means that the full potential of these review types may be lost amongst a confusion of indistinct and misapplied terms. The objective of this study is to provide descriptive insight into the most common types of reviews, with illustrative examples from health and health information domains. Methods : Following scoping searches, an examination was made of the vocabulary associated with the literature of review and synthesis (literary warrant). A simple analytical framework—Search, AppraisaL, Synthesis and Analysis (SALSA)—was used to examine the main review types. Results : Fourteen review types and associated methodologies were analysed against the SALSA framework, illustrating the inputs and processes of each review type. A description of the key characteristics is given, together with perceived strengths and weaknesses. A limited number of review types are currently utilized within the health information domain. Conclusions : Few review types possess prescribed and explicit methodologies and many fall short of being mutually exclusive. Notwithstanding such limitations, this typology provides a valuable reference point for those commissioning, conducting, supporting or interpreting reviews, both within health information and the wider health care domain.
5,571 citations
TL;DR: The methodology and guidance for the conduct of systematic scoping reviews outlined below was developed by members of the JoAnna Briggs Institute and members of five Joanna Briggs Collaborating Centres.
Abstract: Reviews of primary research are becoming more common as evidence-based practice gains recognition as the benchmark for care, and the number of, and access to, primary research sources has grown. One of the newer review types is the 'scoping review'. In general, scoping reviews are commonly used for 'reconnaissance' - to clarify working definitions and conceptual boundaries of a topic or field. Scoping reviews are therefore particularly useful when a body of literature has not yet been comprehensively reviewed, or exhibits a complex or heterogeneous nature not amenable to a more precise systematic review of the evidence. While scoping reviews may be conducted to determine the value and probable scope of a full systematic review, they may also be undertaken as exercises in and of themselves to summarize and disseminate research findings, to identify research gaps, and to make recommendations for the future research. This article briefly introduces the reader to scoping reviews, how they are different to systematic reviews, and why they might be conducted. The methodology and guidance for the conduct of systematic scoping reviews outlined below was developed by members of the Joanna Briggs Institute and members of five Joanna Briggs Collaborating Centres.
3,390 citations
"Roles for librarians in systematic ..." refers background in this paper
...Scoping reviews are intended to be broad, exploratory reconnaissance searches of the relevant literature to determine key characteristics of the subject [7, 8]....
[...]
TL;DR: The PRESS 2015 Guideline Statement should help to guide and improve the peer review of electronic literature search strategies and suggested that structured PRESS could identify search errors and improved the selection of search terms.
2,051 citations
"Roles for librarians in systematic ..." refers methods in this paper
...Sampson composed an evidence-based guideline for peer reviewing search strategies [32, 33]....
[...]
TL;DR: A comparison of existing software programs but found that none was truly satisfactory, and unique identifiers for journal articles are digital object identifiers (DOIs) and PubMed IDs (PMIDs) cannot be relied upon to identify duplicates.
Abstract: When conducting exhaustive searches for systematic reviews, information professionals search multiple databases with overlapping content. They typically remove duplicate records to reduce the reviewers’ workload associated with screening titles and abstracts; sometimes the reviewers remove the duplicates.This article describes a de-duplication method.
771 citations
"Roles for librarians in systematic ..." refers background in this paper
...Some reports have examined different methods of deduplication for specific products and databases, and analyzed the strengths and weaknesses for each method [16, 17]....
[...]