The systematic review team: contributions of the health sciences librarian

Rapid Reviews to Support Practice: A Guide for Professional Organization Practice Networks

Background. Occupational Therapists, among other healthcare decision makers, often need to make decisions within limited timeframes and cannot wait for the completion of large rigorous systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Rapid reviews are one method to increase the integration of research evidence into clinical decision making. Rapid reviews streamline the systematic review process to allow for the timely synthesis of evidence; however, there does not exist a single agreed upon guide for the methodology and reporting of rapid reviews. Purpose. This paper proposes a rapid review methodology that is customized to a professional organization practice which can feasibly be used by practice networks such as those of the Canadian Association for Occupational Therapy to conduct reviews. Implications. Practice networks provide a sustainable mechanism to integrate research evidence and foster communication amongst practitioners. This guide for conducting and reporting rapid reviews can be used across Occupational Therapy practice networks and similar groups to support the consistent and timely synthesis of evidence necessary to improve evidence-informed clinical decision making.

Database coverage and their use in systematic reviews regarding spinal manipulative therapy: an exploratory study

BACKGROUND

Systematic reviews (SRs) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are considered one of the most reliable study types. Through a systematic and thorough literature search, researchers aim to collect all research relevant to their purpose. The selection of databases can be challenging and depend on the topic of interest. The Cochrane Handbook suggests searching at least the following three databases: Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, and EMBASE. However, this is not always sufficient for reviews on the musculoskeletal field in general. This study aimed to examine the frequency and choice of databases used by researchers in SRs of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT). Secondly, to analyze the RCTs included in the SRs to determine the optimal combination of databases needed to conduct efficient literature searches for SRs of SMT.

METHODS

SRs investigating the effect of SMT on any patient-reported outcome measure were identified through searches in PubMed and Epistemonikos (all entries till date of search February 25, 2022). For each SR, databases searched and included RCTs were collected. RCTs were searched individually in nine databases (Cochrane Library, MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, Google Scholar, CINAHL, Web of Science, Index to Chiropractic Literature, PEDro, and AMED). Coverage rates were calculated using the number of retrieved RCTs by the database or combinations of databases divided by the total number of RCTs.

RESULTS

Eighty-five SRs published met the inclusion criteria, and 442 unique RCTs were retrieved. The most frequently searched database was MEDLINE/PubMed. Cochrane Library had the highest overall coverage rate and contained the third most unique RCTs. While a 100% retrieval was not possible, as 18 RCTs could not be retrieved in any of the nine databases, the combination of Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, and PEDro retrieved all possible RCTs with a combined coverage rate of 95.9%.

CONCLUSIONS

For SRs on SMT, we recommend using the combination suggested by the Cochrane Handbook of Cochrane Library, MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, and in addition, PEDro and Index to Chiropractic Literature. Google Scholar might be used additionally as a tool for searching gray literature and quality assurance.

A Tailored Approach: A model for literature searching in complex systematic reviews

Our previous work identified that nine leading guidance documents for seven different types of systematic review advocated the same process of literature searching. We defined and illustrated this process and we named it ‘the Conventional Approach’. The Conventional Approach appears to meet the needs of researchers undertaking literature searches for systematic reviews of clinical interventions. In this article, we report a new and alternate process model of literature searching called ‘A Tailored Approach’. A Tailored Approach is indicated as a search process for complex reviews which do not focus on the evaluation of clinical interventions. The aims of this article are to (1) explain the rationale for, and the theories behind, the design of A Tailored Approach; (2) report the current conceptual illustration of A Tailored Approach and to describe a user’s interaction with the process model; and (3) situate the elements novel to A Tailored Approach (when compared with the Conventional Approach) in the relevant literature. A Tailored Approach suggests investing time at the start of a review, to develop the information needs from the research objectives, and to tailor the search approach to studies or data. Tailored Approaches should be led by the information specialist (librarian) but developed by the research team. The aim is not necessarily to focus on comprehensive retrieval. Further research is indicated to evaluate the use of supplementary search methods, methods of team-working to define search approaches, and to evaluate the use of conceptual models of information retrieval for testing and evaluation.

Principles of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses

In this chapter, we summarize the key principles involved in designing and conducting a rigorous systematic review focused on an intervention question. We provide key definitions on what systematic reviews and meta-analysis are and how they differ from other types of reviews. We cover the principles for designing a good systematic review question, research team, designing and conducting literature searches, screening and selecting studies, extracting data, assessing the risk of bias of the included studies, conducting qualitative and quantitative syntheses, and appraising the certainty of the body of evidence. Finally, we describe the best tools for reporting a systematic review and meta-analysis and for assessing its quality.

Colandr

Colandr.https://colandrcommunity.com;colandrteam@gmail.com; pricing: free.

Examining the Reach and Impact of a Systematic Review Service

This case study describes the process librarians at a large research university used to evaluate a systematic review searching service. PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and Scopus were searched for studies with a local, health sciences author. Data on librarian involvement, search quality, and standards adherence were recorded. Results of the assessment indicate a gradual increase in librarian authorship or acknowledgement over time, a moderate improvement in adherence to reporting standards over time, and insight into which departments better adhere to standards. Ideas for improving the quality and reach of the service while ensuring sustainability are discussed.

Burnout among medical and health sciences information professionals who support systematic reviews: an exploratory study

Objective

The aim of this exploratory study was to assess personal, work-related, and client-related burnout among information professionals who support systematic review (SR) work.

Methods

The Copenhagen Burnout Inventory, a validated tool for assessing burnout, was administered to information professionals who support SR work. A broad range of health sciences or medical librarians and information professionals were targeted via professional email discussion lists and news outlets. Questionnaire responses were captured electronically using Qualtrics Survey Software and quantitatively analyzed.

Results

Respondents experienced an average personal burnout score of 48.6, work-related score of 46.4, and client-related score of 32.5 out of 100. Respondents who reported spending >80% of their job duties on SR work had significantly lower personal burnout scores than those who reported spending <10% of their job duties on SR work (average, 31.5 versus 50.9, respectively). Also, respondents who reported using an SR support tool had significantly lower personal burnout scores than those who reported sometimes using a tool (average, 43.7 versus 54.7, respectively).

Conclusion

The results suggest that information professionals who dedicate more time to SR work or who consistently use an SR support tool experience less burnout. This study provides groundwork for further investigation with the aim of developing approaches to prevent or combat SR-related burnout among information professionals.

The new roles of medical librarians in medical research

Purpose

This study aims to highlight the role of librarians as an essential element in medical research. For this purpose, the primary research process was divided into three phases: before, during and after. Then, the roles of librarians associated with each phase were separated and the viewpoint of researchers and librarians on the importance of these roles were considered and compared.

Design/methodology/approach

This comparative, descriptive-causal research was conducted using the census method. Birjand University, a type-2 university in the field of Medical Sciences according to the rating of the Iranian Ministry of Health and Medical Education, was selected for the study. The participants were all faculty members and all librarians working in the university’s libraries. The data collection tool was a questionnaire made by authors. Its validity was confirmed by four professors of Library Science, and questionnaire design expert and its reliability was confirmed with a Cronbach's alpha of 0.89. Data were analyzed with the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, using descriptive statistics.

Findings

From the perspective of researchers, awareness-raising for open access resources, determination of standard subject keywords on the basis of Medical Subject Headings for articles and scientific texts and using scientific research findings as a basis for preventing duplicate studies in future research are the most important roles for librarians in the three stages of medical research. From the perspective of librarians, the use of knowledge management skills, searching scientific information as review of the literature and also selecting standard keywords to search the databases and providing health-care professionals with the findings of latest scientific research have the highest place in the different stages of the research lifecycle.

Originality/value

The difference between the viewpoints of librarians and researchers about the role of medical librarians at the various stages of the research lifecycle shows that there are significant gaps between the librarians’ services and users’ expectations. It is expected that through learning modern professional skills, medical librarians can assume new roles in medical research and make their capabilities known and available to researchers.

Emerging roles of health information professionals for library and information science curriculum development: a scoping review

Objective

This scoping review identified the emerging and evolving roles of health information professionals (HIPs) in a range of tasks and settings, as they adapt to varied user needs, while keeping up with changing medical landscapes to provide evidence-based information support in grand rounds and scholarly research. The review aims to inform library school students about expected entry-level job qualifications and faculty about adaptable changes to specialized HIP curricula.

Methods

The authors examined 268 peer-reviewed journal articles that concentrated on evolving HIP roles, professional settings, and contexts by retrieving results from several multidisciplinary databases.

Results

HIPs, who generally serve as “embedded librarians,” are taking on more active roles as collaborators, research experts, and liaisons, replacing more passive and exclusive roles as information providers and outreach agents or research assistants. These evolving roles in the reviewed literature were broken into nine categories in approximate order of prominence.

Conclusions

A new model linking these evolving roles to the Medical Library Association (MLA) fundamental professional competencies was developed to provide an operational examination and research-based evidence for adapting HIP continuing education curriculum learning outcomes, course content and delivery, and student career pathways for existing graduate HIP specialization courses in library programs. The model indicates each role’s connection to the MLA professional competencies, based on MLA’s detailed description of each competency. A better understanding of HIP demands and expectations will enhance the capacity of library programs to prepare students in HIP specializations.

Transforming the systematic review service: a team-based model to support the educational needs of researchers

To meet the current needs of researchers who perform systematic reviews in health care settings, libraries need to provide high-quality educational services for researchers as part of their systematic review services. A team of librarians with diverse skills is also important for ensuring the growth and sustainability of systematic review services. This commentary describes a new team-based systematic review service model that can transform systematic review services by providing a pathway for librarians to offer a comprehensive educational service for systematic review research in a variety of health sciences library settings.

Defining the process to literature searching in systematic reviews: a literature review of guidance and supporting studies

BACKGROUND

Systematic literature searching is recognised as a critical component of the systematic review process. It involves a systematic search for studies and aims for a transparent report of study identification, leaving readers clear about what was done to identify studies, and how the findings of the review are situated in the relevant evidence. Information specialists and review teams appear to work from a shared and tacit model of the literature search process. How this tacit model has developed and evolved is unclear, and it has not been explicitly examined before. The purpose of this review is to determine if a shared model of the literature searching process can be detected across systematic review guidance documents and, if so, how this process is reported in the guidance and supported by published studies.

METHOD

A literature review. Two types of literature were reviewed: guidance and published studies. Nine guidance documents were identified, including: The Cochrane and Campbell Handbooks. Published studies were identified through 'pearl growing', citation chasing, a search of PubMed using the systematic review methods filter, and the authors' topic knowledge. The relevant sections within each guidance document were then read and re-read, with the aim of determining key methodological stages. Methodological stages were identified and defined. This data was reviewed to identify agreements and areas of unique guidance between guidance documents. Consensus across multiple guidance documents was used to inform selection of 'key stages' in the process of literature searching.

RESULTS

Eight key stages were determined relating specifically to literature searching in systematic reviews. They were: who should literature search, aims and purpose of literature searching, preparation, the search strategy, searching databases, supplementary searching, managing references and reporting the search process.

CONCLUSIONS

Eight key stages to the process of literature searching in systematic reviews were identified. These key stages are consistently reported in the nine guidance documents, suggesting consensus on the key stages of literature searching, and therefore the process of literature searching as a whole, in systematic reviews. Further research to determine the suitability of using the same process of literature searching for all types of systematic review is indicated.

Collaboration challenges in systematic reviews: a survey of health sciences librarians

OBJECTIVE

While many librarians have been asked to participate in systematic reviews with researchers, often these researchers are not familiar with the systematic review process or the appropriate role for librarians. The purpose of this study was to identify the challenges and barriers that librarians face when collaborating on systematic reviews. To take a wider view of the whole process of collaborating on systematic reviews, the authors deliberately focused on interpersonal and methodological issues other than searching itself.

METHODS

To characterize the biggest challenges that librarians face while collaborating on systematic review projects, we used a web-based survey. The thirteen-item survey included seventeen challenges grouped into two categories: methodological and interpersonal. Participants were required to indicate the frequency and difficulty of the challenges listed. Open-ended questions allowed survey participants to describe challenges not listed in the survey and to describe strategies used to overcome challenges.

RESULTS

Of the 17 challenges listed in the survey, 8 were reported as common by over 40% of respondents. These included methodological issues around having too broad or narrow research questions, lacking eligibility criteria, having unclear research questions, and not following established methods. The remaining challenges were interpersonal, including issues around student-led projects and the size of the research team. Of the top 8 most frequent challenges, 5 were also ranked as most difficult to handle. Open-ended responses underscored many of the challenges included in the survey and revealed several additional challenges.

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggest that the most frequent and challenging issues relate to development of the research question and general communication with team members. Clear protocols for collaboration on systematic reviews, as well as a culture of mentorship, can help librarians prevent and address these challenges.

The influence of the team in conducting a systematic review

There is an increasing body of research documenting flaws in many published systematic reviews' methodological and reporting conduct. When good systematic review practice is questioned, attention is rarely turned to the composition of the team that conducted the systematic review. This commentary highlights a number of relevant articles indicating how the composition of the review team could jeopardise the integrity of the systematic review study and its conclusions. Key biases require closer attention such as sponsorship bias and researcher allegiance, but there may also be less obvious affiliations in teams conducting secondary evidence-syntheses. The importance of transparency and disclosure are now firmly on the agenda for clinical trials and primary research, but the meta-biases that systematic reviews may be at risk from now require further scrutiny.

A competency framework for librarians involved in systematic reviews

Objective

The project identified a set of core competencies for librarians who are involved in systematic reviews.

Methods

A team of seven informationists with broad systematic review experience examined existing systematic review standards, conducted a literature search, and used their own expertise to identify core competencies and skills that are necessary to undertake various roles in systematic review projects.

Results

The team identified a total of six competencies for librarian involvement in systematic reviews: “Systematic review foundations,” “Process management and communication,” “Research methodology,” “Comprehensive searching,” “Data management,” and “Reporting.” Within each competency are the associated skills and knowledge pieces (indicators). Competence can be measured using an adaptation of Miller’s Pyramid for Clinical Assessment, either through self-assessment or identification of formal assessment instruments.

Conclusions

The Systematic Review Competencies Framework provides a standards-based, flexible way for librarians and organizations to identify areas of competence and areas in need of development to build capacity for systematic review integration. The framework can be used to identify or develop appropriate assessment tools and to target skill development opportunities.

Impact of librarians on reporting of the literature searching component of pediatric systematic reviews

OBJECTIVE

A critical element in conducting a systematic review is the identification of studies. To date, very little empirical evidence has been reported on whether the presence of a librarian or information professional can contribute to the quality of the final product. The goal of this study was to compare the reporting rigor of the literature searching component of systematic reviews with and without the help of a librarian.

METHOD

Systematic reviews published from 2002 to 2011 in the twenty highest impact factor pediatrics journals were collected from MEDLINE. Corresponding authors were contacted via an email survey to determine if a librarian was involved, the role that the librarian played, and functions that the librarian performed. The reviews were scored independently by two reviewers using a fifteen-item checklist.

RESULTS

There were 186 reviews that met the inclusion criteria, and 44% of the authors indicated the involvement of a librarian in conducting the systematic review. With the presence of a librarian as coauthor or team member, the mean checklist score was 8.40, compared to 6.61 (p<0.001) for reviews without a librarian.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings indicate that having a librarian as a coauthor or team member correlates with a higher score in the literature searching component of systematic reviews.

On the reproducibility of meta-analyses: six practical recommendations

Background

Meta-analyses play an important role in cumulative science by combining information across multiple studies and attempting to provide effect size estimates corrected for publication bias. Research on the reproducibility of meta-analyses reveals that errors are common, and the percentage of effect size calculations that cannot be reproduced is much higher than is desirable. Furthermore, the flexibility in inclusion criteria when performing a meta-analysis, combined with the many conflicting conclusions drawn by meta-analyses of the same set of studies performed by different researchers, has led some people to doubt whether meta-analyses can provide objective conclusions.

Discussion

The present article highlights the need to improve the reproducibility of meta-analyses to facilitate the identification of errors, allow researchers to examine the impact of subjective choices such as inclusion criteria, and update the meta-analysis after several years. Reproducibility can be improved by applying standardized reporting guidelines and sharing all meta-analytic data underlying the meta-analysis, including quotes from articles to specify how effect sizes were calculated. Pre-registration of the research protocol (which can be peer-reviewed using novel ‘registered report’ formats) can be used to distinguish a-priori analysis plans from data-driven choices, and reduce the amount of criticism after the results are known.

Summary

The recommendations put forward in this article aim to improve the reproducibility of meta-analyses. In addition, they have the benefit of “future-proofing” meta-analyses by allowing the shared data to be re-analyzed as new theoretical viewpoints emerge or as novel statistical techniques are developed. Adoption of these practices will lead to increased credibility of meta-analytic conclusions, and facilitate cumulative scientific knowledge.

Using Sandelowski and Barroso's Meta-Synthesis Method in Advancing Qualitative Evidence

The purpose of this article was to iteratively account for and discuss the handling of methodological challenges in two qualitative research syntheses concerning patients' experiences of hospital transition. We applied Sandelowski and Barroso's guidelines for synthesizing qualitative research, and to our knowledge, this is the first time researchers discuss their methodological steps. In the process, we identified a need for prolonged discussions to determine mutual understandings of the methodology. We discussed how to identify the appropriate qualitative research literature and how to best conduct exhaustive literature searches on our target phenomena. Another finding concerned our status as third-order interpreters of participants' experiences and what this meant for synthesizing the primary findings. Finally, we discussed whether our studies could be classified as metasummaries or metasyntheses. Although we have some concerns regarding the applicability of the methodology, we conclude that following Sandelowski and Barroso's guidelines contributed to valid syntheses of our studies.

Conducting systematic reviews of intervention questions I: Writing the review protocol, formulating the question and searching the literature

This article is the fourth of six articles addressing systematic reviews in animal agriculture and veterinary medicine. Previous articles in the series have introduced systematic reviews, discussed study designs and hierarchies of evidence, and provided details on conducting randomized controlled trials, a common design for use in systematic reviews. This article describes development of a review protocol and the first two steps in a systematic review: formulating a review question, and searching the literature for relevant research. The emphasis is on systematic reviews of questions related to interventions. The review protocol is developed prior to conducting the review and specifies the plan for the conduct of the review, identifies the roles and responsibilities of the review team and provides structured definitions related to the review question. For intervention questions, the review question should be defined by the PICO components: population, intervention, comparison and outcome(s). The literature search is designed to identify all potentially relevant original research that may address the question. Search terms related to some or all of the PICO components are entered into literature databases, and searches for unpublished literature also are conducted. All steps of the literature search are documented to provide transparent reporting of the process.

Flipping the classroom to teach systematic reviews: the development of a continuing education course for librarians

OBJECTIVE

The researchers used the flipped classroom model to develop and conduct a systematic review course for librarians.

SETTING

The research took place at an academic health sciences library.

METHOD

A team of informationists developed and conducted a pilot course. Assessment informed changes to both course components; a second course addressed gaps in the pilot.

MAIN RESULTS

Both the pilot and subsequent course received positive reviews. Changes based on assessment data will inform future iterations.

CONCLUSION

The flipped classroom model can be successful in developing and implementing a course that is well rated by students.

Analysis of a librarian-mediated literature search service

Librarian-mediated literature searching is a key service provided at medical libraries. This analysis outlines ten years of data on 19,248 literature searches and describes information on the volume and frequency of search requests, time spent per search, databases used, and professional designations of the patron requestors. Combined with information on best practices for expert searching and evaluations of similar services, these findings were used to form recommendations on the improvement and standardization of a literature search service at a large health library system.

Developing a library systematic review service: a case study

Systematic review searching is a standard job responsibility for many health sciences librarians. The strategies a library uses to market its expertise may affect the number of researchers requesting librarian assistance as well as how researchers perceive librarians as systematic review collaborators. This article describes how one health sciences library developed, launched, and promoted its systematic review service to researchers on campus.

Research Embedded Health Librarianship: The Canadian Landscape

Introduction: Previous research has identified various types of embedded librarianship – the clinical informationist, the academic liaison librarian, and the special librarian within a corporation. There is far less mention of librarians who are embedded in health research teams; however, the authors’ personal experiences indicate these positions are not rare. The research-embedded health librarian (REHL) provides tailored, intensive information services to a health research team in which the REHL is integrated. This research study aims to describe the REHL workforce in Canada, noting how the characteristics of both the positions and the individuals holding them differ from those of health librarians in more traditional librarian roles. Methods: As Part I of a two-part mixed methods study, an electronic survey was distributed to Canadian health librarians. The survey gathered demographic data on all respondents and information on the work environments and experiences of self-identified REHL respondents. Descriptive data analysis was conducted, and statistical differences between REHLs and non-REHLs were calculated. Results: One hundred and ninety-one individuals completed the survey, with 39 (20%) self-identifying as REHLs. The results indicated that REHLs tend to be both younger and newer to the profession than librarians in non-REHL positions. They are more likely to work for research institutes and nonprofit organizations, and they are less likely to work in hospital environments. They are also more likely to be hired on term-specific contracts than on a permanent basis. Discussion: More survey respondents identified themselves as REHLs than was anticipated, which may indicate that this a growing segment of the health librarian workforce. The high number of contract positions could be one explanation for why REHLs tend to be younger librarians or librarians who are newer to the profession, as they are just starting out in their careers. The predominance of contract positions is likely influenced by the high number of jobs in research institutes or nonprofit organizations where continuance of the positions is dependent on securing grant funding.

The academic librarian as co-investigator on an interprofessional primary research team: a case study

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to explore the role librarians play on research teams. The experiences of a librarian and a faculty member are situated within the wider literature addressing collaborations between health science librarians and research faculty.

METHODS

A case study approach is used to outline the involvement of a librarian on a team created to investigate the best practices for integrating nurses into the workplace during their first year of practice.

RESULTS

Librarians contribute to research teams including expertise in the entire process of knowledge development and dissemination including the ability to navigate issues related to copyright and open access policies of funding agencies.

DISCUSSION

The librarian reviews the various tasks performed as part of the research team ranging from the grant application, to working on the initial literature review as well as the subsequent manuscripts that emerged from the primary research. The motivations for joining the research team, including authorship and relationship building, are also discussed. Recommendations are also made in terms of how librarians could increase their participation on research teams.

CONCLUSION

The study shows that librarians can play a key role on interprofessional primary research teams.

Librarians as Part of Cross-Disciplinary, Multi-Institutional Team Projects: Experiences from the VIVO Collaboration

Cross-disciplinary, team-based collaboration is essential for addressing today's complex research questions, and librarians are increasingly entering into such collaborations. This study identifies skills needed as librarians integrate into cross-disciplinary teams, based on the experiences of librarians involved in the development and implementation of VIVO, a research discovery and collaboration platform. Participants discussed the challenges, skills gained, and lessons learned throughout the project. Their responses were analyzed in the light of the science of team science literature, and factors affecting collaboration on the VIVO team were identified. Skills in inclusive thinking, communication, perseverance, adaptability, and leadership were found to be essential.