Will health librarians and related information workers ever work together to create an international network?

A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies

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.

The role of the information specialist in the systematic review process: a health information case study

There is an increasing body of literature on the information specialist's role in supporting evidence-based health care. In particular, the information component in systematic reviews has received considerable attention in recent years. Information professionals have evolved from simply acting as 'evidence locators' and 'resource providers' to being quality literature filterers, critical appraisers, educators, disseminators, and even change managers. This paper describes ten possible roles for information professionals in the systematic review process, using a case study of a review of the health information needs of visually impaired people carried out by the Centre for Health Information Management Research (CHIMR) at the University of Sheffield. This health information review was undertaken entirely by a team of information professionals. The ten roles identified are: project leader, project manager, literature searcher, reference manager, document supplier, critical appraiser, data extractor, data synthesiser, report writer and disseminator. This review has also identified an eleventh possible role for information professionals; that of primary researcher. Finally, the implications for evidence-based health care and evidence-based health informatics are discussed.

From EBM to EBL: two steps forward or one step back?

The author employs his vantage point as a contributor to Evidence-based Medicine (EBM) and Evidence-based Librarianship (EBL) in the United Kingdom to anticipate obstacles to be overcome by the emerging EBL paradigm. After reviewing and synthesizing three proto-definitions of EBL, he discusses issues around the potential domains to be populated by research findings. He then briefly considers the contribution that critical appraisal skills can make to an evidence-based profession. In concluding that "evidence-based librarianship" is a self-limiting "label," he encourages health information professionals instead to promote the contribution of librarianship to evidence-based practice, a role for which they are uniquely qualified.