Benchmarking veterinary librarians’ participation in systematic reviews and scoping reviews
Keywords:Benchmarking, Roles, Scoping Reviews, Systematic Reviews, Veterinary Librarians
Objectives: The objectives of this study were to benchmark roles that veterinary librarians at universities and colleges play in systematic reviews (SRs) and scoping reviews that are conducted by faculty and students at their institutions, to benchmark the level of training that veterinary librarians have in conducting SRs, to identify barriers to their participation in SRs, and to identify other types of literature reviews that veterinary librarians participate in.
Methods: Sixty veterinary librarians in universities and colleges in Canada, the United States, England, Scotland, Ireland, Australia, and New Zealand were surveyed online about their roles and training in conducting SRs, barriers to participation in SRs, and participation in other types of literature reviews.
Results: Veterinary librarians’ highest participation was at an advising level in traditional librarian roles as question formulator, database selector, search strategy developer, and reference manager. Most respondents reported pretty good to extensive training in traditional roles and no or some training in less traditional roles. Sixty percent of respondents received few or no requests to participate in SRs, and only half of respondents had participated in SRs as a review team member. Sixty percent of respondents stated that their libraries had no policies regarding librarian roles and participation in SRs.Conclusions: The surveyed veterinary librarians participated in SRs to a lesser degree than human health sciences librarians, experienced low demand from veterinary faculty and students to participate in SRs, and participated as review team members at significantly lower rates than human health sciences librarians. The main barriers to participation in SRs were lack of library policies, insufficient training, and lack of time.
Holmes MA. Systematic reviews in small animal veterinary medicine: what are they and why do we need them? J Small Anim Pract. 2012 Apr;53(4):195–6. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-5827.2011.01194.x.
Canadian Institutes of Health Research. About us: knowledge translation at CIHR [Internet]. The Institute; 2016 [cited 2 May 2019]. <http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/29418.html>.
Higgins JT, Green S, eds. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions [Internet]. Version 5.1.0. Cochrane Collaboration; Mar 2011 [cited 2 May 2019]. <http://handbook-5-1.cochrane.org/>.
Institute of Medicine. Finding what works in health care: standards for systematic reviews [Internet]. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2011 [cited 2 May 2019]. <http://www.nationalacademies.org/hmd/Reports/2011/Finding-What-Works-in-Health-Care-Standards-for-Systematic-Reviews.aspx>.
Golder S, Loke Y, McIntosh HM. Poor reporting and inadequate searches were apparent in systematic reviews of adverse effects. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008 May;61(5):440–8. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.06.005.
Zhang L, Sampson M, McGowan J. Reporting of the role of the expert searcher in Cochrane Reviews. Evidence Based Libr Inf Pract. 2006;1(4):44. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18438/B85K52.
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 Jun;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.
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.
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.
Springshare. Introducing LibWizard. Springshare Blog [Internet]. Springshare; 2016 [cited 2 May 2019]. <https://blog.springshare.com/2016/02/03/introducing-libwizard/>.
Veterinary Medical Libraries Section. Veterinary medical and related libraries international directory [Internet]. Medical Library Association; 2019 [cited 2 May 2019]. <http://www.mlanet.org/page/veterinary-medical-libraries-directory>.
International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Defining the role of authors and contributors [Internet]. The Committee; 2015 [cited 2 May 2019]. <http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html>.
Wood H, O’Connor A, Sargeant J, Glanville J. Information retrieval for systematic reviews in food and feed topics: a narrative review. Res Synth Methods. 2018 Dec;9(4):527–39. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1289.
Di Girolamo N, Meursinge Reynders R. Deficiencies of effectiveness of intervention studies in veterinary medicine: a cross-sectional survey of ten leading veterinary and medical journals. Peer J. 2016 Jan 28;4:e1649. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.1649.
Dean RS. Veterinary clinical trials are on trial. Vet Rec. 2017 Aug 19;181(8):193–4. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/vr.j3867.
Toews L. The information infrastructure that supports evidence-based veterinary medicine: a comparison with human medicine. J Vet Med Educ. 2011 Summer;38(2):123–34. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3138/jvme.38.2.123.
Cooper C, Booth A, Varley-Campbell J, Britten N, Garside R. Defining the process to literature searching in systematic reviews: a literature review of guidance and supporting studies. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018 Aug 14;18(1):85. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0545-3.
Parker RMN, Boulos L, Visintini S, Ritchie K, Hayden J. Environmental scan and evaluation of best practices for online systematic review resources. J Med Libr Assoc. 2018 Apr;106(2):208–18. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2018.241.
York Health Economics Consortium. Advanced search strategy design for complex topics [Internet]. University of York; 2019 [cited 2 May 2019]. <https://www.yhec.co.uk/training/advanced-search-strategy-design/>.
Syreaf Systematic Reviews for Animals and Food. Tutorials [Internet]. Syreaf; 2019 [cited 2 May 2019]. <http://www.syreaf.org/education/>.
University of Nottingham Centre for Evidence Based Veterinary Medicine. Training opportunities [Internet]. The University; 2019 [cited 2 May 2019]. <https://www.nottingham.ac.uk/cevm/training-opportunities/training-opportunities.aspx>.
Young I, Waddell L, Sanchez J, Wilhelm B, McEwen SA, Rajić A. The application of knowledge synthesis methods in agri-food public health: recent advancements, challenges and opportunities. Prev Vet Med. 2014 Mar 1;113(4):339–55. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2013.11.009.
Sargeant JM, O’Connor AM. Introduction to systematic reviews in animal agriculture and veterinary medicine. Zoonoses Public Health. 2014 Jun;61(suppl 1):3–9. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/zph.12128.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.