The Systematic Review Team: Contributions of the Health Sciences Librarian

While the role of the librarian as an expert searcher in the systematic review process is widely recognized, librarians also can be enlisted to help systematic review teams with other challenges. This article reviews the contributions of librarians to systematic reviews, including communicating methods of the review process, collaboratively formulating the research question and exclusion criteria, formulating the search strategy on a variety of databases, documenting the searches, record keeping, and writing the search methodology. It also discusses challenges encountered such as irregular timelines, providing education, communication, and learning new technologies for record keeping. Rewards include building relationships with researchers, expanding professional expertise, and receiving recognition for contributions to health care outcomes.     

The systematic review team: contributions of the health sciences librarian

While the role of the librarian as an expert searcher in the systematic review process is widely recognized, librarians also can be enlisted to help systematic review teams with other challenges. This article reviews the contributions of librarians to systematic reviews, including communicating methods of the review process, collaboratively formulating the research question and exclusion criteria, formulating the search strategy on a variety of databases, documenting the searches, record keeping, and writing the search methodology. It also discusses challenges encountered such as irregular timelines, providing education, communication, and learning new technologies for record keeping. Rewards include building relationships with researchers, expanding professional expertise, and receiving recognition for contributions to health care outcomes.     

The librarian's roles in the systematic review process: a case study.

QUESTION/SETTING: Although the systematic review has become a research standard, little information addresses the actions of the librarian on a systematic review team. METHOD: This article is an observational case study that chronicles a librarian's required involvement, skills, and responsibilities in each stage of a real-life systematic review. MAIN RESULTS: Examining the review process reveals that the librarian's multiple roles as an expert searcher, organizer, and analyzer form an integral part of the Cochrane Collaboration's criteria for conducting systematic reviews. Moreover, the responsibilities of the expert searcher directly reflect the key skills and knowledge depicted in the "Definition of Expert Searching" section of the Medical Library Association's policy statement, "Role of Expert Searching in Health Sciences Libraries." CONCLUSION: Although the librarian's multiple roles are important in all forms of medical research, they are crucial in a systematic review. As an expert searcher, the librarian must interact with the investigators to develop the terms required for a comprehensive search strategy in multiple appropriate sources. As an organizer and analyzer, the librarian must effectively manage the articles and document the search, retrieval, and archival processes.     

Development of an efficient search filter to retrieve systematic reviews from PubMed

Objective:Locating systematic reviews is essential for clinicians and researchers when creating or updating reviews and for decision-making in health care. This study aimed to develop a search filter for retrieving systematic reviews that improves upon the performance of the PubMed systematic review search filter.Methods:Search terms were identified from abstracts of reviews published in Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the titles of articles indexed as systematic reviews in PubMed. Both the precision of the candidate terms and the number of systematic reviews retrieved from PubMed were evaluated after excluding the subset of articles retrieved by the PubMed systematic review filter. Terms that achieved a precision greater than 70% and relevant publication types indexed with MeSH terms were included in the filter search strategy.Results:The search strategy used in our filter added specific terms not included in PubMed''s systematic review filter and achieved a 61.3% increase in the number of retrieved articles that are potential systematic reviews. Moreover, it achieved an average precision that is likely greater than 80%.Conclusions:The developed search filter will enable users to identify more systematic reviews from PubMed than the PubMed systematic review filter with high precision.     

Brian Vickery,September 11, 1918–October 17, 2009

The article reviews the life and work of Brian Campbell Vickery, one of the major figures of British classification and information retrieval, and a scholar of international reputation. His career as librarian, researcher, and academic is described, as is the part he played in the development of information science theory in the twentieth century. Some of his most significant publications are listed, with reference to the scale and breadth of his published work overall.     

Use of a search summary table to improve systematic review search methods,results, and efficiency

Background:Systematic reviews are comprehensive, robust, inclusive, transparent, and reproducible when bringing together the evidence to answer a research question. Various guidelines provide recommendations on the expertise required to conduct a systematic review, where and how to search for literature, and what should be reported in the published review. However, the finer details of the search results are not typically reported to allow the search methods or search efficiency to be evaluated.Case Presentation:This case study presents a search summary table, containing the details of which databases were searched, which supplementary search methods were used, and where the included articles were found. It was developed and published alongside a recent systematic review. This simple format can be used in future systematic reviews to improve search results reporting.Conclusions:Publishing a search summary table in all systematic reviews would add to the growing evidence base about information retrieval, which would help in determining which databases to search for which type of review (in terms of either topic or scope), what supplementary search methods are most effective, what type of literature is being included, and where it is found. It would also provide evidence for future searching and search methods research.     

Librarian Contributions to Clinical Practice Guidelines

Librarians have become more involved in developing high quality systematic reviews. Evidence-based practice guidelines are an extension of systematic reviews and offer another significant area for librarian involvement. This column highlights opportunities and challenges for the librarian working on guideline panels and provides practical considerations for meaningful contributions to the guideline creation process.     

Medical librarians' knowledge and practices in locating clinical trials for systematic reviews

Objective:In regard to locating clinical trials for a systematic review, limited information is available about how librarians locate clinical trials in biomedical databases, including (1) how much information researchers provide librarians to assist with the development of a comprehensive search strategy, (2) which tools librarians turn to for information about study design methodology, and (3) librarians'' confidence levels in their knowledge of study design methodology. A survey was developed to explore these aspects of how a medical librarian locates clinical trials when facilitating systematic reviews for researchers.Methods:In this cross-sectional study, a 21-question survey was sent to medical librarians via several email listservs during April 2020. Respondents were limited to librarians who make the decisions on search terms for systematic reviews.Results:Responses (n=120) indicated that librarians were often asked to search for various types of clinical trials. However, there was not a consistent method for creating search strategies that locate diverse types of clinical trials. Multiple methods were used for search strategy development, with hedges being the most popular method. In general, these librarians considered themselves to be confident in locating trials. Different resources were used to inform study types, including textbooks, articles, library guides and websites.Discussion:Medical librarians indicated that while they felt confident in their searching skills, they did not have a definitive source of information about the various types of clinical trials, and their responses demonstrated a clear need and desire for more information on study design methodology.     

Expert searching in health librarianship: a literature review to identify international issues and Australian concerns

Background: The traditional role of health librarians as expert searchers is under challenge. Objectives: The purpose of this review is to establish health librarians’ views, practices and educational processes on expert searching. Methods: The search strategy was developed in LISTA and then customised for ten other databases: ALISA, PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL, ERIC, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library and Google Scholar. The search terms were (expert search* OR expert retriev* OR mediated search* OR information retriev*) AND librar*. The searches, completed in December 2010 and repeated in May 2011, were limited to English language publications from 2000 to 2011 (unless seminal works). Results: Expert searching remains a key role for health librarians, especially for those supporting systematic reviews or employed as clinical librarians answering clinical questions. Conclusions: Although clients tend to be satisfied with searches carried out for them, improvements are required to effectively position the profession. Evidence‐based guidelines, adherence to transparent standards, review of entry‐level education requirements and a commitment to accredited, rigorous, ongoing professional development will ensure best practice.     

Benchmarking participation of Canadian university health sciences librarians in systematic reviews

This study describes the current state of Canadian university health sciences librarians'' knowledge about, training needs for, and barriers to participating in systematic reviews (SRs). A convenience sample of Canadian librarians was surveyed. Over half of the librarians who had participated in SRs acknowledged participating in a traditional librarian role (e.g., search strategy developer); less than half indicated participating in any one nontraditional librarian role (e.g., data extractor). Lack of time and insufficient training were the most frequently reported barriers to participating in SRs. The findings provide a benchmark for tracking changes in Canadian university health sciences librarians'' participation in SRs.     

Assessing the roles and challenges of librarians in dental systematic and scoping reviews

Objective:The objective of this study was to determine the scope of experience, roles, and challenges that librarians face in participating in dental and oral health systematic and scoping reviews to inform outreach efforts to researchers and identify areas for librarian professional development.Methods:The authors developed a twenty-three-item survey based on the findings of two recent articles about health sciences librarians'' roles and challenges in conducting systematic and scoping reviews. The survey was distributed via electronic mailing lists to librarians who were likely to have participated in conducting dental systematic and scoping reviews.Results:While survey respondents reported participating in many dental reviews, they participated more commonly in systematic reviews than in scoping reviews. Also, they worked less commonly on dental and oral health reviews than on non-dental reviews. Librarian roles in dental reviews tended to follow traditional librarian roles: all respondents had participated in planning and information retrieval stages, whereas fewer respondents had participated in screening and assessing articles. The most frequently reported challenges involved the lead reviewer or review team rather than the librarians themselves, with time- and methodology-related challenges being most common.Conclusions:Although librarians might not be highly involved in dental and oral health systematic and scoping reviews, more librarian participation in these reviews, either as methodologists or information experts, may improve their reviews'' overall quality.     

PROSPERO: An International Register of Systematic Review Protocols

PROSPERO is an international database of systematic review protocols produced by the University of York’s Center for Research and Dissemination and funded by the National Institute for Health Research. It contains protocols of systematic reviews on health and social care, welfare, public health, education, crime, justice, and health-related international development. PROSPERO compiles a comprehensive listing of systematic review protocols in an attempt to avoid duplication of effort, reduce reporting bias, and promote transparency.     

Library systematic review service supports evidence-based practice outside of medicine

Cornell University Library offers a systematic review service that meets growing patron demand across disciplinary areas. The library identified interest in evidence synthesis methodologies on campus as an opportunity to engage more deeply in faculty and student research and advocate for librarian involvement in systematic reviews. The service allows librarians to promote best practices for applying review methods in academic areas where they are less established, such as environmental science, economics, and agriculture. This article outlines the development of the service and presents strategies for providing sustainable support as review production grows across the colleges and departments we work with.     

PRISMA-S: an extension to the PRISMA statement for reporting literature searches in systematic reviews

Background:Literature searches underlie the foundations of systematic reviews and related review types. Yet, the literature searching component of systematic reviews and related review types is often poorly reported. Guidance for literature search reporting has been diverse and, in many cases, does not offer enough detail to authors who need more specific information about reporting search methods and information sources in a clear, reproducible way. This document presents the PRISMA-S (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses literature search extension) checklist, and explanation and elaboration.Methods:The checklist was developed using a three-stage Delphi survey process, followed by a consensus conference and public review process.Results:The final checklist includes sixteen reporting items, each of which is detailed with exemplar reporting and rationale.Conclusions:The intent of PRISMA-S is to complement the PRISMA Statement and its extensions by providing a checklist that could be used by interdisciplinary authors, editors, and peer reviewers to verify that each component of a search is completely reported and, therefore, reproducible.     

The value and impact of information provided through library services for patient care: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE: An updated systematic review was carried out of research studies looking at the value and impact of library services on health outcomes for patients and time saved by health professionals. METHODS: A comprehensive systematic search was undertaken of the published literature to September 2003 in ERIC, LISA, MEDLINE, PREMEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register and Google. Some handsearching was carried out, reference lists were scanned and experts in the field were contacted. Twenty-eight research studies of professionally led libraries for health-care staff, including clinical librarian projects, met the inclusion criterion of at least one health or 'time saved' outcome. Papers were critically appraised using internationally accepted criteria. Data were extracted and results were summarised using a narrative format as the studies were heterogeneous and precluded a statistical analysis. RESULTS: There is evidence of impact from both traditional and clinical librarian services. The higher quality studies of traditional services measured impacts of 37-97% on general patient care, 10-31% on diagnosis, 20-51% on choice of tests, 27-45% on choice of therapy and 10-19% on reduced length of stay. Four studies of clinical librarian projects suggested that professionals saved time as a result of clinical librarian input, and two of these studies showed evidence of cost-effectiveness. However, the clinical librarian studies were generally smaller, with poorer quality standards. CONCLUSIONS: Research studies suggest that professionally led library services have an impact on health outcomes for patients and may lead to time savings for health-care professionals. The available studies vary greatly in quality but the better quality studies also suggest positive impacts. Good practice can be gathered from these studies to guide the development of a pragmatic survey for library services that includes the direct effects for patients among the outcome measures.     

PRISMA 2020 and PRISMA-S: common questions on tracking records and the flow diagram

The PRISMA 2020 and PRISMA-S guidelines help systematic review teams report their reviews clearly, transparently, and with sufficient detail to enable reproducibility. PRISMA 2020, an updated version of the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) statement, is complemented by PRISMA-S, an extension to PRISMA focusing on reporting the search components of systematic reviews. Several significant changes were implemented in PRISMA 2020 and PRISMA-S when compared with the original version of PRISMA in 2009, including the recommendation to report search strategies for all databases, registries, and websites that were searched. PRISMA-S also recommends reporting the number of records identified from each information source. One of the most challenging aspects of the new guidance from both documents has been changes to the flow diagram. In this article, we review some of the common questions about using the PRISMA 2020 flow diagram and tracking records through the systematic review process.     

发表于《中华儿科杂志》的系统评价／Meta分析的报告质量和方法学质量评价

目的：评价《中华儿科杂志》发表系统评价／Meta分析（SR／MA）的报告质量和方法学质量。方法：检索发表在《中华儿科杂志》上的系统评价／Meta分析文献,共纳入13篇。提取纳入文献的基本信息,采用系统综述和Meta分析优先报告的条目（PRISMA）规范和方法学质量评价工具AMSTAR量表进行质量评价,使用RevMan5．0软件进行统计分析。结果：PRISMA评分范围14-23．5分,平均为20．0±3．11分;AMSTAR评分范围和平均分分别为3—7．5和6．04±1．38分。结论：《中华儿科杂志》发表系统评价／Meta分析报告和方法学质量中等,报告质量规范和方法学质量还有待提高。     

Exploring Best Management Practices for Geospatial Data in Academic Libraries

Due to the exponential growth of spatial information, effective management and curation of geospatial data has become a central concern for GIS libraries. Although geospatial data are often generated based on a set of well-established standards and protocols, best management practices in geospatial data services are still limited. In this paper, the authors review the common challenges of geospatial data management and curation, which include the application of big data, the emergence of Web GIS, and the advancement of cyberinfrastructures. A spatial education project is used as an example to discuss potential best management practices to address these challenges. It is demonstrated that librarians need to be involved at the early stage of a research project and work closely with researchers at all stages of the data life cycle for effective data management. With early involvement of a GIS librarian in the full project development process, all three challenges can be addressed by using best management practices in organizing, managing, publishing, distributing, and preserving the geospatial data.     

Consistency and accuracy of indexing systematic review articles and meta‐analyses in medline

Background: Systematic review articles support the advance of science and translation of research evidence into healthcare practice. Inaccurate retrieval from medline could limit access to reviews. Objective: To determine the quality of indexing systematic reviews and meta‐analyses in medline . Methods: The Clinical Hedges Database, containing the results of a hand search of 161 journals, was used to test medline indexing terms for their ability to retrieve systematic reviews that met predefined methodologic criteria (labelled as ‘pass’ review articles) and reviews that reported a meta‐analysis. Results: The Clinical Hedges Database contained 49 028 articles; 753 were ‘pass’ review articles (552 with a meta‐analysis). In total 758 review articles (independent of whether they passed) reported a meta‐analysis. The search strategy that retrieved the highest number of ‘pass’ systematic reviews achieved a sensitivity of 97.1%. The publication type ‘meta analysis’ had a false positive rate of 5.6% (95% CI 3.9 to 7.6), and false negative rate of 0.31% (95% CI 0.26 to 0.36) for retrieving systematic reviews that reported a meta‐analysis. Conclusions: Inaccuracies in indexing systematic reviews and meta‐analyses in medline can be partly overcome by a 5‐term search strategy. Introducing a publication type for systematic reviews of the literature could improve retrieval performance.