Learning while doing: program evaluation of the Medical Library Association Systematic Review Project

Objectives: The Medical Library Association (MLA) Systematic Review Project aims to conduct systematic reviews to identify the state of knowledge and research gaps for fifteen top-ranked questions in the profession. In 2013, fifteen volunteer-driven teams were recruited to conduct the systematic reviews. The authors investigated the experiences of participants in this large-scale, volunteer-driven approach to answering priority research questions and fostering professional growth among health sciences librarians.Methods: A program evaluation was conducted by inviting MLA Systematic Review Project team members to complete an eleven-item online survey. Multiple-choice and short-answer questions elicited experiences about outputs, successes and challenges, lessons learned, and future directions. Participants were recruited by email, and responses were collected over a two-week period beginning at the end of January 2016.Results: Eighty (8 team leaders, 72 team members) of 198 potential respondents completed the survey. Eighty-four percent of respondents indicated that the MLA Systematic Review Project should be repeated in the future and were interested in participating in another systematic review. Team outputs included journal articles, conference presentations or posters, and sharing via social media. Thematic analysis of the short-answer questions yielded five broad themes: learning and experience, interpersonal (networking), teamwork, outcomes, and barriers.Discussion: A large-scale, volunteer-driven approach to performing systematic reviews shows promise as a model for answering key questions in the profession and demonstrates the value of experiential learning for acquiring synthesis review skills and knowledge. Our project evaluation provides recommendations to optimize this approach.

Download Full-text

Assisting With Systematic Reviews Can Be Associated With Job-Related Burnout in Information Professionals

Evidence Based Library and Information Practice ◽

10.18438/eblip29791 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 15 (3) ◽

pp. 181-183

Author(s):

Kimberly MacKenzie

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Rating Scale ◽

The United States ◽

Average Score ◽

Support Tool ◽

Demographic Groups ◽

Work Related ◽

Medical Library ◽

Information Professionals

Demetres, M. R., Wright, D. N., & DeRosa, A. P. (2020). Burnout among medical and health sciences information professionals who support systematic reviews: An exploratory study. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 108(1), 89–97. https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2020.665 Abstract Objective – This study explored reports of burnout among librarians who assist with systematic review preparation. Design – Electronic survey (Copenhagen Burnout Inventory). Setting – The survey was advertised via three email discussion lists based in the United States of America. Subjects – The study surveyed 198 librarians and information specialists who support the systematic review process. Of these, 166 completed the personal burnout scale, 159 completed the work burnout scale, and 151 completed the client burnout scale. Methods – The Copenhagen Burnout Inventory (CBI) is a validated survey that includes three separate scales: personal burnout, work-related burnout, and client-related burnout. The end of the survey addressed demographics, including questions on the respondents’ involvement with systematic reviews. Survey questions use a 0 to 100 rating scale, with 0 indicating Never/To a Low Degree and 100 indicating Always/To a High Degree. The researchers shared the survey to the email discussion lists MEDLIB-L and DOCLINE and advertised it on the Medical Library Association (MLA) News. Survey answers were collected using Qualtrics Survey Software. Once emailed, the survey remained open for one month. Data was coded in Excel and analysis included scoring following the CBI metrics, as well as TukeyHSD and Kruskal-Wallis tests to determine differences in demographic groups. Main Results – Reported burnout levels were significantly lower for those who spend more than 80% of their time helping with systematic reviews compared to those who spend less than 10%. The consistent use of a systematic review support tool was also associated with significantly lower burnout levels. Other comparisons were not significant. The average overall response score for personal burnout was 48.6. The average score for work-related burnout was 46.4 and the average score for client-related burnout was 32.5. Reference librarians reported the highest average total burnout scores (47.1), while research librarians had the lowest (37.7). Conclusion – Consistency, either in time spent dedicated to systematic reviews or in the use of a support tool, was associated with lower levels of burnout among librarians and information specialists. The authors suggest that these results could inform ways of improving burnout among those assisting with systematic reviews.

Download Full-text

Infant milk-feeding practices and childhood leukemia: a systematic review

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition ◽

10.1093/ajcn/nqy306 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 109 (Supplement_1) ◽

pp. 757S-771S ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

Darcy Güngör ◽

Perrine Nadaud ◽

Carol Dreibelbis ◽

Concetta C LaPergola ◽

Yat Ping Wong ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Human Milk ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Childhood Leukemia ◽

Lymphoblastic Leukemia ◽

Surveillance Systems ◽

Limited Evidence ◽

Cancer Data ◽

Review Team ◽

Milk Feeding

ABSTRACTBackgroundDuring the Pregnancy and Birth to 24 Months Project, the US Departments of Agriculture and Health and Human Services initiated a review of evidence on diet and health in these populations.ObjectivesThe aim of these systematic reviews was to examine the relation of 1) never versus ever feeding human milk, 2) shorter versus longer durations of any human milk feeding, 3) shorter versus longer durations of exclusive human milk feeding, and 4) feeding a lower versus higher intensity of human milk to mixed-fed infants with acute childhood leukemia, generally, and acute lymphoblastic leukemia, specifically.MethodsThe Nutrition Evidence Systematic Review team conducted systematic reviews with external experts. We searched CINAHL, Cochrane, Embase, and PubMed for articles published January 1980 to March 2016, dual-screened the results using predetermined criteria, extracted data from and assessed risk of bias for each included study, qualitatively synthesized the evidence, developed conclusion statements, and graded the strength of the evidence.ResultsWe included 24 articles from case-control or retrospective studies. Limited evidence suggests that never feeding human milk versus 1) ever feeding human milk and 2) feeding human milk for durations ≥6 mo are associated with a slightly higher risk of acute childhood leukemia, whereas evidence comparing never feeding human milk with feeding human milk for durations <6 mo is mixed. Limited evidence suggests that, among infants fed human milk, a shorter versus longer duration of human milk feeding is associated with a slightly higher risk of acute childhood leukemia. None of the included articles examined exclusive human milk feeding or the intensity of human milk fed to mixed-fed infants.ConclusionsFeeding human milk for short durations or not at all may be associated with slightly higher acute childhood leukemia risk. The evidence could be strengthened with access to broadly generalizable prospective samples; therefore, we recommend linking surveillance systems that collect infant feeding and childhood cancer data.

Download Full-text

The Pregnancy and Birth to 24 Months Project: a series of systematic reviews on diet and health

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition ◽

10.1093/ajcn/nqy372 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 109 (Supplement_1) ◽

pp. 685S-697S ◽

Cited By ~ 20

Author(s):

Eve E Stoody ◽

Joanne M Spahn ◽

Kellie O Casavale

Keyword(s):

Public Health ◽

Systematic Review ◽

Dietary Intake ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Feeding Practices ◽

The Body ◽

Feeding Strategies ◽

Public Health Importance ◽

Review Team ◽

Pregnancy And Birth

ABSTRACTNutrition exposures during the earliest stages of life are integral to growth and development and may continue to affect health through adulthood. The purpose of the Pregnancy and Birth to 24 Months (P/B-24) Project was to conduct a series of systematic reviews on diet and health for women who are pregnant and for infants and toddlers from birth to 24 mo of age. The P/B-24 Project was a joint initiative led by the USDA and the US Department of Health and Human Services. The USDA's Nutrition Evidence Systematic Review team, previously known as the Nutrition Evidence Library, carried out the series of systematic reviews in collaboration with programmatic and scientific experts. Systematic review questions were prioritized based on federal policy, program, or guidance needs, potential to support the development of healthy dietary intake, and public health importance. Systematic reviews were conducted on specific topics related to dietary intake before and during pregnancy, infant milk feeding practices, complementary feeding, flavor exposures, and infant/toddler feeding practices. Across the reviews, relationships were observed between P/B-24 diet exposures and a variety of outcomes of public health importance. Evidence showed links between dietary intake before and during pregnancy, during the period of human milk or infant formula feeding, and through introduction of complementary foods and beverages and health outcomes. Additionally, the reviews on flavor exposure and infant/toddler feeding practices highlight the importance of maternal diet during pregnancy and lactation and caregiver feeding strategies and practices. Systematic reviews are an important tool to inform our understanding of the body of evidence related to diet and health, and scientists can use the P/B-24 Project reviews to continue to advance research in these areas.

Download Full-text

Clinical handover and handoff in healthcare: a systematic review of systematic reviews

International Journal for Quality in Health Care ◽

10.1093/intqhc/mzaa170 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Melissa Desmedt ◽

Dorien Ulenaers ◽

Joep Grosemans ◽

Johan Hellings ◽

Jochen Bergs

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Data Extraction ◽

Implementation Process ◽

Healthcare Setting ◽

Well Being ◽

Role Playing ◽

Included Study ◽

Clinical Handover ◽

Review Team

Abstract Purpose The purpose of this systematic review is to appraise and summarize existing literature on clinical handover. Data sources We searched EMBASE, MEDLINE, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Study selection Included articles were reviewed independently by the review team. Data extraction The review team extracted data under the following headers: author(s), year of publication, journal, scope, search strategy, number of studies included, type of studies included, study quality assessment, used definition of handover, healthcare setting, outcomes measured, findings and finally some comments or remarks. Results of data synthesis First, research indicates that poor handover is associated with multiple potential hazards such as lack of availability of required equipment for patients, information omissions, diagnosis errors, treatment errors, disposition errors and treatment delays. Second, our systematic review indicates that no single tool arises as best for any particular specialty or use to evaluate the handover process. Third, there is little evidence delineating what constitutes best handoff practices. Most efforts facilitated the coordination of care and communication between healthcare professionals using electronic tools or a standardized form. Fourth, our review indicates that the principal teaching methods are role-playing and simulation, which may result in better knowledge transfer to the work environment, better health and patients’ well-being. Conclusions This review emphasizes the importance of staff education (including simulation-based and team training), non-technical skills and the implementation process of clinical handover in healthcare settings.

Download Full-text

Infant milk-feeding practices and food allergies, allergic rhinitis, atopic dermatitis, and asthma throughout the life span: a systematic review

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition ◽

10.1093/ajcn/nqy283 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 109 (Supplement_1) ◽

pp. 772S-799S ◽

Cited By ~ 22

Author(s):

Darcy Güngör ◽

Perrine Nadaud ◽

Concetta C LaPergola ◽

Carol Dreibelbis ◽

Yat Ping Wong ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Allergic Rhinitis ◽

Atopic Dermatitis ◽

Human Milk ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Childhood Asthma ◽

Included Study ◽

Food Allergies ◽

Review Team ◽

Milk Feeding

ABSTRACT Background During the Pregnancy and Birth to 24 Months Project, the USDA and Department of Health and Human Services initiated a review of evidence on diet and health in these populations. Objectives The aim of these systematic reviews was to examine the relation of 1) never versus ever feeding human milk, 2) shorter versus longer durations of any human milk feeding, 3) shorter versus longer durations of exclusive human milk feeding prior to infant formula introduction, 4) feeding a lower versus higher intensity of human milk to mixed-fed infants, and 5) feeding a higher intensity of human milk by bottle versus breast with food allergies, allergic rhinitis, atopic dermatitis, and asthma. Methods The Nutrition Evidence Systematic Review team conducted systematic reviews with external experts. We searched CINAHL, Cochrane, Embase, and PubMed for articles published between January 1980 and March 2016, dual-screened the results according to predetermined criteria, extracted data from and assessed the risk of bias for each included study, qualitatively synthesized the evidence, developed conclusion statements, and graded the strength of the evidence. Results The systematic reviews numbered 1–5 above included 44, 35, 1, 0, and 0 articles, respectively. Moderate, mostly observational, evidence suggests that 1) never versus ever being fed human milk is associated with higher risk of childhood asthma, and 2) among children and adolescents who were fed human milk as infants, shorter versus longer durations of any human milk feeding are associated with higher risk of asthma. Limited evidence does not suggest associations between 1) never versus ever being fed human milk and atopic dermatitis in childhood or 2) the duration of any human milk feeding and allergic rhinitis and atopic dermatitis in childhood. Conclusions Moderate evidence suggests that feeding human milk for short durations or not at all is associated with higher childhood asthma risk. Evidence on food allergies, allergic rhinitis, and atopic dermatitis is limited.

Download Full-text

Interventions to prevent aggression against doctors: a systematic review

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2018-028465 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 9 (9) ◽

pp. e028465 ◽

Cited By ~ 4

Author(s):

Ann Raveel ◽

Birgitte Schoenmakers

Keyword(s):

Risk Factors ◽

Systematic Review ◽

Violence Prevention ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Workplace Violence ◽

Large Scale ◽

Controlled Trial ◽

Prevention Programme ◽

Eligibility Criteria ◽

Moderate Evidence

ObjectiveTo find out if there is evidence on interventions to prevent aggression against doctors.DesignThis systematic review searched the literature and reported in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.Data sourcesPubmed, Embase, Turning Research into Practice (TRIP), Cochrane and Psycharticle, GoogleScholar andwww.guideline.govwere consulted.Eligibility criteriaAbstracts published in English between January 2000 and January 2018 were screened. Eligible studies focused on prevention and risk factors of type II workplace violence in general healthcare, psychiatric departments, emergency departments, emergency primary care, general practice.Data extraction and synthesisThe selected intervention studies were grouped into quantitative and qualitative studies. Systematic reviews were reported separately. For each study, the design, type of intervention and key findings were analysed. Quality rating was based on Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) and GRADE-Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research (CERQUAL).Results44 studies are included. One randomised controlled trial (RCT) provided moderate evidence that a violence prevention programme was effective in decreasing risks of violence. Major risk factors are long waiting times, discrepancy between patients’ expectations and services, substance abuse by the patient and psychiatric conditions. Appropriate workplace design and policies aim to reduce risk factors but there is no hard evidence on the effectiveness. One RCT provided evidence that a patient risk assessment combined with tailored actions decreased severe aggression events in psychiatric wards. Applying de-escalation techniques during an aggressive event is highly recommended. Postincident reporting followed by root cause analysis of the incident provides the basic input for review and optimisation of violence prevention programmes.ConclusionsThis review documented interventions to prevent and de-escalate aggression against doctors. Aggression against physicians is a serious occupational hazard. There is moderate evidence that an integrated violence prevention programme decreases the risks of patient-to-worker violence. The review failed to gather sufficient numerical data to perform a meta-analysis. A large-scale cohort study would add to a better understanding of the effectiveness of interventions.

Download Full-text

Collaboration challenges in systematic reviews: a survey of health sciences librarians

Journal of the Medical Library Association JMLA ◽

10.5195/jmla.2017.176 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 105 (4) ◽

Cited By ~ 6

Author(s):

Joey Nicholson ◽

Aileen McCrillis ◽

Jeff D. Williams

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Research Question ◽

Methodological Issues ◽

Eligibility Criteria ◽

Web Based ◽

Team Members ◽

Whole Process ◽

Research Questions ◽

General Communication

Objective: While many librarians have been asked to participate in systematic reviews with researchers, often these researchers are not familiar with the systematic review process or the appropriate role for librarians. The purpose of this study was to identify the challenges and barriers that librarians face when collaborating on systematic reviews. To take a wider view of the whole process of collaborating on systematic reviews, the authors deliberately focused on interpersonal and methodological issues other than searching itself.Methods: To characterize the biggest challenges that librarians face while collaborating on systematic review projects, we used a web-based survey. The thirteen-item survey included seventeen challenges grouped into two categories: methodological and interpersonal. Participants were required to indicate the frequency and difficulty of the challenges listed. Open-ended questions allowed survey participants to describe challenges not listed in the survey and to describe strategies used to overcome challenges.Results: Of the 17 challenges listed in the survey, 8 were reported as common by over 40% of respondents. These included methodological issues around having too broad or narrow research questions, lacking eligibility criteria, having unclear research questions, and not following established methods. The remaining challenges were interpersonal, including issues around student-led projects and the size of the research team. Of the top 8 most frequent challenges, 5 were also ranked as most difficult to handle. Open-ended responses underscored many of the challenges included in the survey and revealed several additional challenges.Conclusions: These results suggest that the most frequent and challenging issues relate to development of the research question and general communication with team members. Clear protocols for collaboration on systematic reviews, as well as a culture of mentorship, can help librarians prevent and address these challenges.

Download Full-text

Is there a window of opportunity for flexibility development in youth? A systematic review with meta-analysis

10.37766/inplasy2021.9.0032 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Olyvia Donti ◽

Andreas Konrad ◽

Ioli Panidi ◽

Petros Dinas ◽

Gregory Bogdanis

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Information Sources ◽

Team Member ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Window Of Opportunity ◽

Team Members ◽

Full List ◽

Final Version ◽

Review Team ◽

Review Question

Review question / Objective: To examine if there is a difference in the effect of stretching training on flexibility during childhood (6-11 years of age) and adolescence (12-18 years of age). Condition being studied: We are going to examine whether there is a greater response to stretching training (i.e. ‘window of opportunity’) during childhood, compared with adolescence. Information sources: Two review team members will independently screen the titles and abstracts of the retrieved publications to select the eligible publications. One review team member will act as a referee in case of disagreement between the review team members. We will also ensure that any retracted publications are identified and excluded from the selection outcome. Furthermore, we will locate the full texts that will not be immediately accessible, via emails to the lead authors and/journals of publication. A full list of the excluded publications will be provided in the final version of the systematic review.

Download Full-text

Evaluation of text mining to reduce screening workload for injury-focused systematic reviews

Injury Prevention ◽

10.1136/injuryprev-2019-043247 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 26 (1) ◽

pp. 55-60 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

Melita J Giummarra ◽

Georgina Lau ◽

Belinda J Gabbe

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Text Mining ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Full Text ◽

Large Scale ◽

High Specificity ◽

Work Related ◽

Registration Number ◽

Low Sensitivity ◽

Injury Research

IntroductionText mining to support screening in large-scale systematic reviews has been recommended; however, their suitability for reviews in injury research is not known. We examined the performance of text mining in supporting the second reviewer in a systematic review examining associations between fault attribution and health and work-related outcomes after transport injury.MethodsCitations were independently screened in Abstrackr in full (reviewer 1; 10 559 citations), and until no more citations were predicted to be relevant (reviewer 2; 1809 citations, 17.1%). All potentially relevant full-text articles were assessed by reviewer 1 (555 articles). Reviewer 2 used text mining (Wordstat, QDA Miner) to reduce assessment to full-text articles containing ≥1 fault-related exposure term (367 articles, 66.1%).ResultsAbstrackr offered excellent workload savings: 82.7% of citations did not require screening by reviewer 2, and total screening time was reduced by 36.6% compared with traditional dual screening of all citations. Abstrackr predictions had high specificity (83.7%), and low false negatives (0.3%), but overestimated citation relevance, probably due to the complexity of the review with multiple outcomes and high imbalance of relevant to irrelevant records, giving low sensitivity (29.7%) and precision (14.5%). Text mining of full-text articles reduced the number needing to be screened by 33.9%, and reduced total full-text screening time by 38.7% compared with traditional dual screening.ConclusionsOverall, text mining offered important benefits to systematic review workflow, but should not replace full screening by one reviewer, especially for complex reviews examining multiple health or injury outcomes.Trial registration numberCRD42018084123.

Download Full-text

Infant milk-feeding practices and cardiovascular disease outcomes in offspring: a systematic review

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition ◽

10.1093/ajcn/nqy332 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 109 (Supplement_1) ◽

pp. 800S-816S ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Darcy Güngör ◽

Perrine Nadaud ◽

Concetta C LaPergola ◽

Carol Dreibelbis ◽

Yat Ping Wong ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Blood Pressure ◽

Cardiovascular Disease ◽

Human Milk ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Feeding Practices ◽

Limited Evidence ◽

Intermediate Outcomes ◽

Review Team ◽

Milk Feeding

ABSTRACT Background During the Pregnancy and Birth to 24 Months Project, the US Departments of Agriculture and Health and Human Services initiated a review of evidence on diet and health in these populations. Objectives The aim of these systematic reviews was to examine the relation of 1) never versus ever feeding human milk, 2) shorter versus longer durations of any human milk feeding, 3) shorter versus longer durations of exclusive human milk feeding, and 4) lower versus higher intensities of human milk fed to mixed-fed infants with intermediate and endpoint cardiovascular disease (CVD) outcomes in offspring. Methods The Nutrition Evidence Systematic Review team conducted systematic reviews with external experts. We searched CINAHL, Cochrane, Embase, and PubMed for articles published January 1980–March 2016, dual-screened the results using predetermined criteria, extracted data from and assessed the risk of bias for each included study, qualitatively synthesized the evidence, developed conclusion statements, and graded the strength of the evidence. Results The 4 systematic reviews included 13, 24, 6, and 0 articles, respectively. The evidence was insufficient to draw conclusions about endpoint CVD outcomes across all 4 systematic reviews. Limited evidence suggests that never versus ever being fed human milk is associated with higher blood pressure within a normal range at 6–7 y of age. Moderate evidence suggests there is no association between the duration of any human milk feeding and childhood blood pressure. Limited evidence suggests there is no association between the duration of exclusive human milk feeding and blood pressure or metabolic syndrome in childhood. Additional evidence about intermediate outcomes for the 4 systematic reviews was scant or inconclusive. Conclusions There is insufficient evidence to draw conclusions about the relationships between infant milk-feeding practices and endpoint CVD outcomes; however, some evidence suggests that feeding less or no human milk is not associated with childhood hypertension.

Download Full-text