Assessing the roles and challenges of librarians in dental systematic and scoping reviews
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2021.1031Keywords:
Systematic Reviews, Scoping Reviews, Dentistry, Oral Health, LibrariansAbstract
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.References
Arksey H, O’Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;8(1):19–32. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616.
Grant MJ, Booth A. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Inf Libr J. 2009 Jun;26(2):91–108. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x.
Higgins JPT, Green S. eds. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions [Internet]. Version 6. London, UK: Cochrane Collaboration; 2019 [cited 15 Oct 2020]. <http://handbook.cochrane.org>.
Page MJ, Shamseer L, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Sampson M, Tricco AC, Catalá-López F, Li L, Reid EK, Sarkis-Onofre R, Moher D. Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews of biomedical research: a cross-sectional study. PLoS Med. 2016;13(5):e1002028. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002028.
Faggion Jr. CM, Huivin R, Aranda L, Pandis N, Alarcon M. The search and selection for primary studies in systematic reviews published in dental journals indexed in MEDLINE was not fully reproducible. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018 Jun;98(1):53–61. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.02.011.
Bassani R, Pereira GKR, Page MJ, Tricco AC, Moher D, Sarkis-Onofre R. Systematic reviews in dentistry: current status, epidemiological and reporting characteristics. J Dent. 2019 Mar;82:71–84. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2019.01.014.
Layton D. A critical review of search strategies used in recent systematic reviews published in selected prosthodontic and implant-related journals: are systematic reviews actually systematic? Int J Prosthodont. 2017 Jan/Feb;30(1):13–21. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.11607/ijp.5193.
Salvador-Oliván JA, Marco-Cuenca G, Arquero-Avilés R. Errors in search strategies used in systematic reviews and their effects on information retrieval. J Med Libr Assoc. 2019 Apr;107(2):210–21. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2019.567.
Saltaji H, Cummings GG, Armijo-Olivo S, Major MP, Amin M, Major PW, Hartling L, Flores-Mir C. A descriptive analysis of oral health systematic reviews published 1991–2012: cross sectional study. PLoS One. 2013;8(9):e74545. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0074545.
Papageorgiou SN, Eliades T. Evidence-based orthodontics: too many systematic reviews, too few trials. J Orthod. 2019 Jun;46(1 suppl):9–12. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1465312519842322.
Faggion Jr. CM, Hagenfeld D. Methodological evaluation of reviews that support recommendations from three consensus workshops in periodontology. J Dent. 2019;86:89–94. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2019.05.029.
Sarkis-Onofre R, Pereira-Cenci T, Tricco AC, Demarco FF, Moher D, Cenci MS. Systematic reviews in restorative dentistry: discussing relevant aspects. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2019 May/Jun;31(3):222–32. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jerd.12463.
Spencer AJ, Eldredge JD. Roles for librarians in systematic reviews: a scoping review. J Med Libr Assoc. 2018 Jan;106(1):46–56. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2018.82.
Rethlefsen ML, Farrell AM, Osterhaus Trzasko LC, Brigham TJ. Librarian co-authors correlated with higher quality reported search strategies in general internal medicine systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2015;68(6):617–26. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.11.025.
Beverley CA, Booth A, Bath PA. The role of the information specialist in the systematic review process: a health information case study. Health Inf Libr J. 2003 Jun;20(2):65–74. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1471-1842.2003.00411.x.
Nevius AM, Stellrecht EM, Schvaneveldt N, Dragan IF. Types and roles of reviews of the literature in dental education. J Dent Educ. 2020 Aug;84(8):847–51. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jdd.12140.
Murphy SA, Boden C. Benchmarking participation of Canadian university health sciences librarians in systematic reviews. J Med Libr Assoc. 2015 Apr;103(2):73–8. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.103.2.003.
Morris M, Boruff JT, Gore GC. Scoping reviews: establishing the role of the librarian. J Med Libr Assoc. 2016 Oct;104(4):346–53. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.104.4.020.
Nicholson J, McCrillis A, Williams JD. Collaboration challenges in systematic reviews: a survey of health sciences librarians. J Med Libr Assoc. 2017 Oct;105(4):385–93. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2017.176.
Toews L. Benchmarking veterinary librarians’ participation in systematic reviews and scoping reviews. J Med Libr Assoc. 2019 Oct;107(4):499–507. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2019.710.
Stellrecht EM, McGowan R, Lubker IM, Schvaneveldt N, Arnold S, Cortez E, Davis RO, Kronenfield M, Theis-Mahon N. A comprehensive summary of services and resources provided by librarians in support of CODA accredited predoctoral (DDS/DMD) dental education programs in the United States and Canada. Presented at: American Dental Education Association Annual Meeting; Long Beach, CA; 19 Mar 2017.
American Dental Association Center for Evidence-Based Dentistry. How to conduct and publish systematic reviews and meta-analyses [Internet]. The Center; 2020 [cited 1 Jul 2020]. <https://ebd.ada.org/en/education/courses/systematic-reviews?utm_source=workshops&utm_medium=EBDsite>.
Nevius AM, Lubker IM, Cortez E, Meyer S, Porcello L, Theis-Mahon N, Swogger S, Zych M. EBD best practices for librarians [Internet]. Charleston, SC: Medical University of South Carolina Libraries; 2019 [cited 1 Jul 2020]. <https://musc.libguides.com/ebdbestpractices>.
American Dental Association Center for Evidence-Based Dentistry. Dentistry for the modern age [Internet]. The Center; 2020 [cited 1 Jul 2020]. <https://ebd.ada.org/en/education/courses/dentistry-for-the-modern-age?utm_source=workshops&utm_medium=EBDsite>.
