Roles for librarians in systematic reviews: a scoping review
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2018.82Keywords:
Systematic Reviews, Professional Role, Librarians, Professionalism, Information Services, Library Science, Bibliographic Databases, Intersectoral Collaboration, Evidence-Based Practice, Abstracting and Indexing, Scoping ReviewAbstract
Objective: What roles do librarians and information professionals play in conducting systematic reviews? Librarians are increasingly called upon to be involved in systematic reviews, but no study has considered all the roles that librarians can perform. This inventory of existing and emerging roles aids in defining librarians’ systematic reviews services.
Methods: For this scoping review, the authors conducted controlled vocabulary and text-word searches in the PubMed; Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts; and CINAHL databases. We separately searched for articles published in the Journal of the European Association for Health Information and Libraries, Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, the Journal of the Canadian Heath Libraries Association, and Hypothesis. We also text-word searched Medical Library Association annual meeting poster and paper abstracts.
Results: We identified 18 different roles filled by librarians and other information professionals in conducting systematic reviews from 310 different articles, book chapters, and presented papers and posters. Some roles were well known such as searching, source selection, and teaching. Other less documented roles included planning, question formulation, and peer review. We summarize these different roles and provide an accompanying bibliography of references for in-depth descriptions of these roles.
Conclusion: Librarians play central roles in systematic review teams, including roles that go beyond searching. This scoping review should encourage librarians who are fulfilling roles that are not captured here to document their roles in journal articles and poster and paper presentations.
This article has been approved for the Medical Library Association’s Independent Reading Program.
References
Mulrow CD. Rationale for systematic reviews. BMJ. 1994 Sep 3;309(6954):597–9. PubMed PMID: 8086953; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2541393.
Dickersin K, Scherer R, Lefebvre C. Identifying relevant studies for systematic reviews. BMJ. 1994 Nov 12;309(6964):1286–91. PubMed PMID: 7718048; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2541778.
Hunt DL, McKibbon KA. Locating and appraising systematic reviews. Ann Intern Med. 1997 Apr 1;126(7):532–8. PubMed PMID: 9092319.
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. PubMed PMID: 12786905.
Harris MR. The librarian’s roles in the systematic review process: a case study. J Med Libr Assoc. 2005 Jan;93(1):81–7. PubMed PMID: 15685279; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC545126.
Cooper ID, Crum JA. New activities and changing roles of health sciences librarians: a systematic review, 1990–2012. J Med Libr Assoc. 2013 Oct;101(4):268–77. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.101.4.008. PubMed PMID: 24163598; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3794682.
Morris M, Boruff JT, Gore GC. Scoping reviews: establishing the role of the librarian. J Med Libr Assoc. 2016 Oct;104(4):346–54. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.104.4.020.
Peters MD, Godfrey CM, Khalil H, McInerney P, Parker D, Soares CB. Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2015 Sep;13(3):141–6.
Eldredge JD. Evidence-based practice. In: Wood MS, ed. Introduction to health sciences librarianship. New York, NY: The Haworth Press; 2008. p. 245–69.
Eldredge JD, Hannigan GG. Emerging trends in health sciences librarianship. In: Wood MS, ed. Health sciences librarianship. Rowman & Littlefield; Chicago, IL: Medical Library Association; 2014. p. 57–83.
Foster MJ. An overview of the role of librarians in systematic reviews: from expert searcher to project manager. J Eur Assoc Health Inf Libr. 2015;11(3):3–7.
Ascher MT, Foster MJ, MacEachern M, Townsend WA. Beyond the search: expanding role of the librarian in the systematic review process. Presented at MLA ’16, the 116th Annual Meeting of the Medical Library Association; Toronto, ON, Canada; May 13–18, 2016.
Bramer WM, Milic J, Mast F. Reviewing retrieved references for inclusion in systematic reviews using EndNote. J Med Libr Assoc. 2017 Jan;105(1):84–7. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2017.111.
Campbell S, Dorgan M. What to do when everyone wants you to collaborate: managing the demand for library support in systematic review searching. J Can Health Libr Assoc. 2015;36(1):11–9.
Koffel J. Survey of systematic review authors to determine rates of librarian involvement benefits, roles, and barriers to collaboration. Presented at MLA ’15, the 115th Annual Meeting of the Medical Library Association; Austin, TX; May 15–20, 2015.
Bramer WM, Giustini D, de Jonge GB, Holland L, Bekhuis T. De-duplication of database search results for systematic reviews in EndNote. J Med Libr Assoc. 2016 Jul;104(3):240–3. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.104.3.014. Correction in: J Med Libr Assoc. 2017 Jan;105(1):111. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2017.128.
Kwon Y, Lemieux M, McTavish J, Wathen N. Identifying and removing duplicate records from systematic review searches. J Med Libr Assoc. 2015 Oct;103(4):184–8. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.103.4.004.
Bramer WM, Giustini D, Kramer BM, Anderson P. The comparative recall of Google Scholar versus PubMed in identical searches for biomedical systematic reviews: a review of searches used in systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2013 Dec 23;2:115.
Bramer WM, Giustini D, Kramer BM. Comparing the coverage, recall, and precision of searches for 120 systematic reviews in EMBASE, MEDLINE, and Google Scholar: a prospective study. Syst Rev. 2016 Mar 1;5:39.
Bramer WM. Variation in the number of hits for complex searches in Google Scholar. J Med Libr Assoc. 2016 Apr;104(2):143–5. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.104.2.009
Golder S, Loke YK. Failure or success of electronic search strategies to identify adverse effects data. J Med Libr Assoc. 2012 Apr;100(2):130–4. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.100.2.012.
Golder S, Loke YK, Zorzela L. Comparison of search strategies in systematic reviews of adverse effects to other systematic reviews. Health Inf Libr J. 2014 Jun;31(2):92–105.
Knehans A, Dell E. Establishing, marketing, and expanding a fee-based systematic review information service. Poster presented at MLA ’15, the 115th Annual Meeting of the Medical Library Association; Austin, TX; May 15–20, 2015.
Rethlefsen ML, Murad MH, Livingston EH. Engaging medical librarians to improve the quality of review articles. JAMA. 2014 Sep 10;312(1):999–1000.
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.
Li L, Tian J, Tian H, Moher D, Liang F, Jiang T, Yao L, Yang, K. Network meta-analyses could be improved by searching more sources and by involving a librarian. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014 Sep;67(9):1001–7.
Meert D, Torabi N, Costella J. Impact of librarians on reporting of the literature searching component of pediatric systematic reviews. J Med Libr Assoc. 2016 Oct;104(4):267–77. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.104.4.004.
Funk ME, Reid CA. Indexing consistency in MEDLINE. Bull Med Libr Assoc. 1983 Apr;71(2):176–83.
Wilczynski NL, Haynes RB. Consistency and accuracy of indexing systematic review articles and meta-analysis in MEDLINE. Health Inf Libr J. 2009 Sep;26(3):203–10.
Anderson M. Isn’t MeSH enough? Medical Subject Headings for systematic review searching: a preliminary look. Poster presented at MLA ’16, the 116th Annual Meeting of the Medical Library Association; Toronto, ON, Canada; May 13–18, 2016.
Institute of Medicine. Finding what works in health care: standards for systematic reviews. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2011.
Sampson M, McGowan J, Cogo E, Grimshaw J, Moher D, Lefebvre C. An evidence-based practice guideline for the peer review of electronic search strategies. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009 Sep;62(9)944–52.
McGowan J, Sampson M, Salzwedel DM, Cogo E, Foerster V, Lefebvre C. PRESS Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies: 2015 guideline statement. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016 Jul;75:40–6.
Crumley E, Bhatnagar N, Stobart K. Peer reviewing comprehensive search strategies in hemophilia and von Willebrand disease. J Can Health Libr Assoc. 2004;25(4):113–6.
Goode V, Lobner K. Setting expectations: getting your systematic review started on the right foot. Poster presented at MLA ’13, the 113th Annual Meeting of the Medical Library Association; Boston, MA; May 3–8, 2013.
Eldredge JD, Carr R, Broudy, D, Voorhees RE. The effect of training on question formulation among public health practitioners: results from a randomized controlled trial. J Med Libr Assoc. 2008 Oct;96(4):299–309. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.96.4.005.
Cochrane Collaboration. Cochrane handbook for systematic review interventions [Internet]. The Collaboration; 2011 [cited 28 Feb 2017]. <http://handbook.cochrane.org>.
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. PLOS Med. 2009 Jul 21;6(7):e1000100.
Yoshii A, Plaut DA, McGraw KA, Anderson MJ, Wellik KE. Analysis of the reporting of search strategies in Cochrane systematic reviews. J Med Libr Assoc. 2009 Jan;97(1):21–9. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.97.1.004.
Eldredge JD, Ascher MT, Holmes HN, Harris MR. Top-ranked research questions and systematic reviews. Hypothesis. 2013;24(2):5–16.
Eldredge JD, Ascher MT, Holmes HN, Harris MR. The new Medical Library Association research agenda: final results from a three-phase delphi study. J Med Libr Assoc. 2012 Jul;100(3):214–8. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.100.3.012.
Wilczynski NL, Walker CJ, McKibbon KA, Haynes RB. Reasons for the loss of sensitivity and specificity of methodologic MESH and textwords in MEDLINE. Proc Annu Symp Comput Appl Med Care. 1995:436–60.
Giustini D. Search filters and hedges [Internet]. HLWIKI International [cited 28 Feb 2017]. <http://hlwiki.slais.ubc.ca/index.php/Search_filters_%26_hedges>.
McMaster University. Health information research unit [Internet]. The University [cited 28 Feb 2017]. <http://hiru.mcmaster.ca/hiru/>.
Campbell S, Dorgan M, Tjosvold L. Creating provincial and territorial search filters to retrieve studies related to Canadian Indigenous peoples from Ovid MEDLINE. J Can Health Libr Assoc. 2014;35(1):5–10.
Frazier JJ, Stein CD, Tseytlin E, Bekhuis T. Building a gold standard to construct search filters: a case study with biomarkers for oral cancer. J Med Libr Assoc. 2015 Jan;103(1)22–30. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.103.1.005.
Jenkins M. Evaluation of methodological search filters--a review. Health Inf Libr J. 2004 Sep;21(3):148–63.
McKibbon KA, Wilczynski NL, Haynes RB; Hedges Team. Retrieving randomized controlled trials from MEDLINE: a comparison of 38 published search filters. Health Inf Libr J. 2009 Sep;26(3):187–202.
Glanville J, Bayliss S, Booth A, Dundar Y, Fernandes H, Fleeman ND, Foster L, Fraser C, Fry-Smith A, Golder S, Lefebvre C, Miller C, Paisley S, Payne L, Price A, Welch K. So many filters, so little time: the development of a search filter appraisal checklist. J Med Libr Assoc. 2008 Oct;96(4)356–61. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.96.4.011.
Bak G, Mierzwinski-Urban M, Fitzsimmons H, Morrison A, Maden-Jenkins M. A pragmatic critical appraisal instrument for search filters: introducing the CADTH CAI. Health Inf Libr J. 2009 Sep;26(3):211–9.
Medical Library Association. Role of expert searching in health sciences libraries: policy statement by the Medical Library Association adopted September 2003. J Med Libr Assoc. 2005 Jan;93(1):42–4.
McGowan J, Sampson M. Systematic reviews need systematic searchers. J Med Libr Assoc. 2005 Jan;93(1):74–80.
Ford C, Farrah K, Lefebvre C, Rethlefsen ML, Sampson M. Where does gray fit into the mosaic? a discussion of the use, values, and practicality of gray literature in systematic reviews. Presented at MLA ’16, the 116th Annual Meeting of the Medical Library Association; Toronto, ON, Canada; May 13–18, 2016.
Agha R, Fowler AJ, Lee SY, Gundogan B, Whitehurst K, Sagoo H, Jeong K, Altman DG, Orgill DP. A systematic review protocol for reporting deficiencies within surgical case series. BMJ Open. 2015 Oct 5;5(10):e008007.
Arigoni S, Ignjatovic S, Sager P, Betschart J, Buerge T, Wachtl J, Tschuor C, Limani P, Puhan MA, Lesurtel M, Raptis DA, Breitenstein S. Diagnosis and prediction of neuroendocrine liver metastases: a protocol of six systematic reviews. JMIR Res Protoc. 2013 Dec 23;23(2):e60.
Limani P, Tschuor C, Gort L, Balmer B, Gu A, Ceresa C, Raptis DA, Lesurtel M, Puhan M, Breitenstein S. Nonsurgical strategies in patients with NET liver metastases: a protocol of four systematic reviews. JMIR Res Protoc. 2014 Mar 7;3(1):e9.
McCool ME, Theurich MA, Apfelbacher C. Prevalence and predictors of female sexual dysfunction: a protocol for a systematic review. Syst Rev. 2014 Jul 11;3:75.
Chapman AL, Morgan LC, Gartlehner G. Semi-automating the manual literature search for systematic reviews increases efficiency. Health Inf Libr J. 2010 Mar;27(1):22–7.
Glanville JM, Duffy S, McCool R, Varley D. Searching ClinicalTrials.gov and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform to inform systematic reviews: what are the optimal search approaches? J Med Libr Assoc. 2014 Jul;102(3):177–83. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.102.3.007.
Royle P, Waugh N. Should systematic reviews include searches for published errata? Health Inf Libr J. 2004 Mar;21(1):14–20.
DeLuca JB, Mullins MM, Lyles CM, Crepaz N, Kay L, Thadiparthi S. Developing a comprehensive search strategy for evidence based systematic reviews. Evid Based Libr Inf Pract. 2008;3(1):3–32.
Golder S, McIntosh HM, Duffy S, Glanville J; Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and UK Cochrane Centre Search Filters Design Group. Developing efficient search strategies to identify reports of adverse effects in MEDLINE and EMBASE. Health Inf Libr J. 2006 Mar;23(1):3–12.
Booth A, Carroll C. Systematic searching for theory to inform systematic reviews: is it feasible? is it desirable? Health Inf Libr J. 2015 Sep;32(3):220–35.
Parker R, Tougas R, Hayden J. When the RCT filter is not enough: best practices for finding prognosis studies. J Can Health Libr Assoc. 2014;35(2):99–100.
Relevo R. Using analytic framework to make sense of complex search requests. Poster presented at MLA ’10, the 110th Annual Meeting of the Medical Library Association; Washington, DC; May 21–26, 2010.
Jenuwine ES, Floyd JA. Comparison of Medical Subject Headings and text-word searches in MEDLINE to retrieve studies on sleep in healthy individuals. J Med Libr Assoc. 2004 Jul;92(3):349–53.
Posey R, Walker J, Crowell KE. Knowing when to stop: final results versus work involved in systematic review database searching. Presented at MLA ’16, the 116th Annual Meeting of the Medical Library Association; Toronto, ON, Canada; May 13–18, 2016.
Helmer D, Savoie I, Green C, Kazanjian A. Evidence-based practice: extending the search to find material for the systematic review. Bull Med Libr Assoc. 2001 Oct;89(4):346–52.
Crumley ET, Wiebe N, Cramer K, Klassen TP, Hartling L. Which resources should be used to identify RCT/CCTs for systematic reviews: a systematic review. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2005 Aug 10;5:24.
Bethal A, Rogers M. A checklist to assess database-hosting platforms for designing and running searches for systematic reviews. Health Inf Libr J. 2014 Mar;31(1):43–53.
Greyson DL. Non-biomedical sources for systematic reviews of pharmaceutical policy. J Med Libr Assoc. 2010 Jan;98(1):85–7. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.98.1.021.
Lam MT, McDiarmid M. Increasing number of databases searched in systematic reviews and meta-analyses between 1994 and 2014. J Med Libr Assoc. 2016 Oct;104(4):284–9. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.104.4.006.
Koufogiannakis D. LIS systematic reviews [Internet]. 23 Jan 2012 [21 Jun 2015; cited 4 Nov 2016]. <http://lis-systematic-reviews.wikispaces.com/Welcome>.
Brettle A. Information skills training: a systematic review of the literature. Health Inf Libr J. 2003 Jun;20(suppl 1):3–9.
Wagner KC, Byrd GD. Evaluating the effectiveness of clinical medical librarian programs: a systematic review of the literature. J Med Libr Assoc. 2004 Jan;92(1):14–33.
Weightman AL, Williamson J; Library & Knowledge Development Network (LKDN) Quality and Statistics Group. The value and impact of information provided through library services for patient care: a systematic review. Health Inf Libr J. 2005 Mar;22(1):4–25.
Eldredge JD, Ascher MT, Holmes HN. An innovative model of evidenced-based practice for other professions. J Med Libr Assoc. 2015 Apr;103(2):100–2. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.103.2.009.
Eldredge JD, Holmes HN, Ascher MT. Moving the EBLIP community’s research agenda forward. Evid Based Libr Inf Pract. 2015;10(2):170–3.
Harris M. The librarian’s role in conducting a systematic review. Presented at MLA 2000, the 100th Annual Meeting of the Medical Library Association; Vancouver, BC, Canada; May 5–11 2000.
Campbell SM, Kung JYC, Dennett L. A curriculum for an introductory systematic review searching workshop for researchers. J Can Health Libr Assoc. 2016;37(1):2–5.
Conte ML, MacEachern, MP, Mani NS, Townsend WA, Smith JE, Masters C, Kelley C. Flipping the classroom to teach systematic reviews: the development of a continuing education course for librarians. J Med Libr Assoc. 2015 Apr;103(2):69–73. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.103.2.002.
Parker RMN, Neilson MJ. Lost in translation: supporting learners to search comprehensively across databases. J Can Health Libr Assoc. 2015;36(2):54–8.
Fyfe T, Dennett L. Building capacity in systematic review searching: a pilot program using virtual mentoring. J Can Health Libr Assoc. 2012;33(1):12–6.
McKibbon A, Goldsmith C, Hannigan GG. Is my search complete? the capture mark recapture method (CMR) to estimate the number of citations that are missing. Presented at MLA ’10, the 110th Annual Meeting of the Medical Library Association; Washington, DC; May 21–26, 2010.
Nash-Stewart CE, Kruesi LM, Del Mar CB. Does Bradford’s Law of Scattering predict the size of the literature in Cochrane reviews? J Med Libr Assoc. 2012 Apr;100(2):135–8. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.100.2.013.
Sampson M. Welcoming systematic reviews to the Journal of the Medical Library Association [editorial]. J Med Libr Assoc. 2014 Jul;102(3):143–5. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.102.3.001.
de Jonge G, Lein RK. Sharing literature search blocks: status and ideas for a cooperative solution. J Eur Assoc Health Inf Libr. 2015;11(3):11–4.
Gore GC, Jones J. Systematic reviews and librarians: a primer for managers. Partnership: Can J Libr Inf Pract Res. 2015;10(1):1–16..
Bullers K, Howard AM, Sakmar K, Polo RL, Orriola JJ. How long does it take to paint your part of the big picture: the time librarians spend on systematic review tasks. Poster presented at MLA ’16, the 116th Annual Meeting of the Medical Library Association; Toronto, ON, Canada; May 13–18, 2016.
Foster ML The development of the Systematic Review Special Interest Group of MLA. Poster presented at MLA ’15, the 115th Annual Meeting of the Medical Library Association; Austin, TX; May 15–20, 2015.
