Medical librarians’ knowledge and practices in locating clinical trials for systematic reviews
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2021.1144Keywords:
systematic reviews, clinical trials, study design methodology, surveyAbstract
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.
References
Higgins, JPT, Thomas, J, Chandler, J, Cumpston, M, Li, T, Page, MJ, Welch, VA. (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, 6.1 (updated September 2020). [cited 20 Sept 2020] https://training.cochrane.org/cochrane-handbook-systematic-reviews-interventions.
Morton, S, Berg, A, Levit, L, Eden, J. Finding what works in health care: standards for systematic reviews. National Academies Press; 2011 [cited 20 Sept 2020]. PubMed Google Scholar.
Beale S, Duffy S, Glanville J, Lefebvre C, Wright D, McCool R, Varley D, Boachie C, Fraser C, Harbour J, Smith L. Choosing and using methodological search filters: Searchers' views. Health Info Libr J. 2014 Jun;31(2):133-47. DOI: 10.1111/hir.12062 PubMed Google Scholar.
Reeves BC, Deeks JJ, Higgins JPT, Shea B, Tugwell P, Wells GA. Chapter 24: Including non-randomized studies on intervention effects. In: Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.1 (updated September 2020). [cited 25 Nov 2020]. https://training.cochrane.org/handbook/current/chapter-24.
Guyatt, G, Rennie, D, Meade, M, Cook, D. Users' guides to the medical literature. 3rd ed. New York, N.Y: McGraw-Hill Medical; 2015. Google Scholar.
Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. Welcome to the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, 2020 [Internet].[cited 28 Sep 2020]. https://www.cebm.net.
McGowan J, Sampson M. Systematic reviews need systematic searchers. J Med Libr Assoc. 2005 Jan;93(1):74-80. [cited 28 Sep 2020]. PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar.
Glanville JM, Lefebvre C, Miles JN, Camosso-Stefinovic J. How to identify randomized controlled trials in MEDLINE: Ten years on. J Med Libr Assoc. 2006 Apr;94(2):130-6. [cited 28 Sep 2020]. PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar.
Glanville J, Kotas E, Featherstone R, Dooley G. Which are the most sensitive search filters to identify randomized controlled trials in MEDLINE? J Med Libr Assoc. 2020 Oct1;108(4):556-63. DOI: 10.5195/jmla.2020.912. PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar.
Dickersin K, Scherer R, Lefebvre C. Systematic Reviews: Identifying relevant studies for systematic reviews. BMJ. 1994 Nov 12;309(6964):1286-91. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.309.6964.1286. PubMed Google Scholar.
Peinemann F, Tushabe DA, Kleijnen J. Using multiple types of studies in systematic reviews of health care interventions--a systematic review. PLoS One. 2013 Dec 26;8(12):e85035. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0085035. PubMed Google Scholar.
Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network [Internet]. Edinburgh, UK: The Network; [cited 14 July 2020]. https://www.sign.ac.uk/what-we-do/methodology/search-filters/.
Wilczynski N, Ph.D., McKibbon A, Haynes, R. Brian, MD, PhD. Search filter precision can be improved by NOTing out irrelevant content. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2011 Oct 22,(2011):1506–1513. [cited 23 Nov 2020]. HYPERLINK "https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3243169/"PubMed Central Google Scholar.
US National Libraries of Medicine. Clinicaltrials.gov [Internet]. [cited 14 July 2020]. https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/.
Welcome to PROSPERO, International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews, 2020 [Internet]. [cited 25 Nov 2020]. https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero.
Center for Open Science. OSF home, 2020. [Internet]. [cited 25 Nov 2020]. https://osf.io.
