Adopting a toolkit to manage time, resources, and expectations in the systematic review process: a case report

Authors

  • Q. Eileen Wafford Galter Health Sciences Library and Learning Center, Feinberg School of Medicine Northwestern University http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5228-8219
  • Linda C. O’Dwyer Galter Health Sciences Library and Learning Center, Feinberg School of Medicine Northwestern University

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2021.1221

Keywords:

systematic review, toolkit, expectations, team management, process management, project management

Abstract

Background: The proliferation of systematic reviews has impacted library operations and activities as librarians support, collaborate, and perform more tasks in the systematic review process. This case report describes a toolkit that librarians with extensive experience in supporting multiple review teams use to manage time, resources, and expectations in the systematic review process.

Case Presentation: The toolkit is a compilation of documents that we use to effectively communicate with and help review teams understand and navigate each stage of the systematic review process. Elements included in the toolkit and discussed in this case report are intake forms, communication templates and memoranda, a process flow diagram, library guides on tools for retrieval and data appraisal, and established standards for guidance during the write-up stage. We describe the use of the toolkit for both education and project management, with a focus on its use in helping manage team time, resources, and expectations.

Discussion: The systematic review toolkit helps librarians connect systematic review steps and tasks to actionable items. The content facilitates and supports discussion and learning by both librarians and team members. This toolkit helps librarians share important information and resources for each stage of the process.

Author Biographies

Q. Eileen Wafford, Galter Health Sciences Library and Learning Center, Feinberg School of Medicine Northwestern University

Eileen Wafford (MSt, MLIS) is a research librarian working with faculty, staff, students, and affiliated clinical researchers to provide reference and specialized research services, including assistance with search strategies and systematic reviews. Eileen collaborates with faculty and other members of the Feinberg School of Medicine community to create and delivery instructional resources, such as guides and presentations on library services and resources.

Linda C. O’Dwyer, Galter Health Sciences Library and Learning Center, Feinberg School of Medicine Northwestern University

Linda C. O’Dwyer, MA, MSLIS, AHIP is the Head of Research and Information Services at the Galter Health Sciences Library & Learning Center, Northwestern University. A librarian since 2001, she teaches classes on using library resources and information management tools, manages and coordinates a team of research librarians, and collaborates extensively on systematic reviews with Northwestern Medicine researchers.

References

Grimshaw J. A guide to knowledge synthesis: a knowledge synthesis chapter. Ottawa: Canadian Institutes of Health Research; 2010.

Beverley CA, Booth A, Bath PA. The role of the information specialist in the systematic review process: a health information case study. Health Info Libr J. 2003;20(2):65–74.

Spencer AJ, Eldredge JD. Roles for librarians in systematic reviews: a scoping review. J Med Libr Assoc. 2018;106(1):46.

International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Defining the role of authors and contributors [Internet]. 2016. Available from: <http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html>.

Bullers K, Howard AM, Hanson A, Kearns WD, Orriola JJ, Polo RL, Sakmar KA. It takes longer than you think: librarian time spent on systematic review tasks. J Med Libr Assoc. 2018;106(2):198.

Wafford QE, O'Dwyer L. Systematic Review Toolkit [Outlines]. DigitalHub. Galter Health Sciences Library & Learning Center. 2021 [updated 14 Jan 2021]. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18131/g3-fx9k-hs23.

Tsafnat G, Glasziou P, Choong MK, Dunn A, Galgani F, Coiera E. Systematic review automation technologies. Syst Rev. 2014;3(1):74.

Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, Shekelle P, Stewart LA. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Systematic reviews. 2015;4(1):1.

Shamseer L, Moher D, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, Shekelle P, Stewart LA. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. BMJ. 2015;349.

Moher D, Altman DG, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J. PRISMA statement. Epidemiology. 2011;22(1):128.

Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, Clarke M, Devereaux PJ, Kleijnen J, Moher D. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62(10):e1–e34.

Galter Health Sciences Library and Learning Center. Systematic Reviews 2021 [Internet]. Available from: https://libguides.galter.northwestern.edu/systematic-reviews.

O'Dwyer LC, Wafford QE. Addressing challenges with systematic review teams through effective communication: a case report. J Med Libr Assoc. 2021;109(4).

Paez A. Gray literature: An important resource in systematic reviews. J Evid Based Med. 2017;10(3):233–40.

Wafford QE. Managing Multiple Systematic Reviews: Recommended Practices and the Systematic Review Tracking Checklist. 2019 [Internet]. DOI: 10.18131/g3-p2jx-7g16.

Downloads

Additional Files

Published

2021-11-22

Issue

Vol. 109 No. 4 (2021): October 2021

Section

Case Report