scholarly journals Is there a place for undergraduate and graduate students in the systematic review process?

2018 ◽  
Vol 106 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Christina L. Wissinger
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Graduate Students ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Research Methodology ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Basic Education ◽  
Health Sciences ◽  
Research Projects ◽  
Training Opportunities ◽  
Systematic Review Process

Systematic reviews are a well-established and well-honed research methodology in the medical and health sciences fields. As the popularity of systematic reviews has increased, disciplines outside the sciences have started publishing them. This increase in familiarity has begun to trickle down from practitioners and faculty to graduate students and recently undergraduates. The amount of work and rigor that goes into producing a quality systematic review may make these types of research projects seem unattainable for undergraduate or graduate students, but is this an accurate assumption? This commentary discusses whether there is a place for undergraduate and graduate students in the systematic review process. It explains the possible benefits of having undergraduate and graduate students engage in systematic reviews and concludes with ideas for creating basic education or training opportunities for researchers and students who are new to the systematic review process.

scholarly journals Building the Capacity of African Health Sciences Librarians in the Development and Conduct of Systematic Reviews

2020 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 25-33
Author(s):  
Alison Annet Kinengyere ◽  
Haruna Hussein ◽  
Richard Ssenono ◽  
Rehema Chande Mallya
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Research Evidence ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Health Sciences ◽  
African Health ◽  
Evaluation Feedback ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Systematic Review Process ◽  
Ibadan Nigeria

While African health sciences librarians’ role as expert searchers is widely recognized, they have much more to contribute to supporting the development and conduct of systematic reviews. Research evidence has indicated that the librarians rarely participate in the development and conduct of systematic reviews because they are either not called upon to be part, or do not have the skills to participate. Moreover, few librarians who have participated are from outside Africa. Keeping this in mind, the Network of African Medical Librarians (NAML) conducted a pre-AHILA Conference training workshop to introduce participants, specifically the librarians, to the systematic review process. The regional conference for health librarians took place in Ibadan, Nigeria from 14-18 October 2019. This paper evaluates the impact of training of African health sciences librarians in the conduct of systematic reviews. Participants' evaluation feedback was collected using pre and post-training surveys. A mixed-method was employed to gather and analyze both quantitative and qualitative data. The results indicated that the main barriers to librarians’ participation in systematic reviews were lack of skills due to insufficient training and lack of time. This paper is expected to encourage the librarians to advocate for further skills development, in addition to their normal information searching roles. Their participation in the systematic review process would make them, not just relevant but dependable collaborators of systematic review teams, as they participate in improving systematic review reporting.

scholarly journals Acknowledging Librarians’ Contributions to Systematic Review Searching

2016 ◽  
Vol 37 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Robin Desmeules ◽  
Sandy Campbell ◽  
Marlene Dorgan
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Health Sciences ◽  
Research Projects ◽  
Academic Health ◽  
Research Teams ◽  
Time Required ◽  
Professional Value

<p>Abstract</p><p> </p><p>Introduction</p><p>Academic health librarians are increasingly involved as members of research teams that conduct systematic reviews. Sometimes librarians are co-authors on the resulting publications, sometimes they are acknowledged, and sometimes they receive no recognition. This study was designed to query librarian supervisors’ understanding of the extent to which Canadian academic health librarians are involved in systematic reviews and the manner in which their work is recognized.</p><p> </p><p>Methods</p><p>A survey asking 21 questions was sent to supervisors of librarians at all 17 academic health sciences libraries in Canada, querying the extent and nature of librarians’ involvement in systematic review research projects and the forms of acknowledgement that they receive.</p><p> </p><p>Results</p><p>Fourteen responses to the survey were received.  Results show strong expectations that librarians are involved, and will be involved, in systematic review research projects.  Results related to the number of reviews undertaken, the amount of time required, the forms of acknowledgement received, and the professional value of systematic review searching varied greatly.</p><p> </p><p>Discussion</p><p>The lack of consensus among academic health librarians’ supervisors regarding most aspects of librarians’ involvement in systematic review projects, and the ways in which this work is and should be acknowledged, points to the need for research on this subject. </p><p> </p>

scholarly journals Librarian Involvement in Systematic Reviews at Queen’s University: An Environmental Scan

2016 ◽  
Vol 37 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Amanda Ross-White
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Research Methodology ◽  
Health Sciences ◽  
Lead Author ◽  
Cultural Norms ◽  
Environmental Scan ◽  
School Of Nursing ◽  
The Past ◽  
To Receive

<p>Introduction</p><p>Systematic reviews pose a growing research methodology in many fields, particularly in the health sciences. Many publishers of systematic reviews require or advocate for librarian involvement in the process, but do not explicitly require the librarian to receive co-authorship. In preparation for developing a formal systematic review service at Queen’s, this environmental scan of systematic reviews was conducted to see whether librarians receive co-authorship or other acknowledgement of their role in systematic reviews.</p><p>Methods</p><p>A search of the Joanna Briggs Database and both Medline and PubMed for systematic reviews with at least one Queen’s-affiliated author was completed. These were classified based on the level of acknowledgement received by the librarian involved in the search into three groups: librarian as co-author, librarian acknowledged and unclear librarian involvement. In instances where the lead author was Queen’s-affiliated, these were also categorized by their primary academic department.</p><p>Results</p><p>Of 231 systematic reviews published with at least one Queen’s-affiliated author since 1999, 32 listed a librarian as co-author. A librarian received acknowledgement in a further 36. The School of Nursing published the most systematic reviews and was most likely to have a librarian as co-author.</p><p>Discussion</p>Librarians at Queen’s are actively involved in systematic reviews and co-authorship is a means of valuing our contribution. Librarians appear to be more likely to achieve co-authorship when they have advocated for this role in the past. Success varies according to the cultural norms of the department.

Partnering Up: Including Managers as Research Partners in Systematic Reviews

2020 ◽  
pp. 109442812096570
Author(s):  
Garima Sharma ◽  
Pratima (Tima) Bansal
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Practical Knowledge ◽  
Management Practice ◽  
Academic Research ◽  
Knowledge Systems ◽  
Business Sustainability ◽  
Research Endeavor ◽  
Systematic Review Process

Systematic reviews of academic research have not impacted management practice as much as many researchers had hoped. Part of the reason is that researchers and managers differ so significantly in their knowledge systems—in both what they know and how they know it. Researchers can overcome some of these challenges by including managers as knowledge partners in the research endeavor; however, doing so is rife with challenges. This article seeks to answer, how can researchers and managers navigate the tensions related to differences in their knowledge systems to create more impactful systematic reviews? To answer this question, we embarked on a data-guided journey of the experience of the Network for Business Sustainability, which had undertaken 15 systematic reviews that involved researchers and managers. We interviewed previous participants of the projects, observed different systematic review processes, and collected archival data to learn more about researcher-manager collaborations in the systematic review process. This article offers guidance to researchers in imbricating academic with practical knowledge in the systematic review process.

scholarly journals PRISMA 2020 and PRISMA-S: Common Questions on Tracking Records and the Flow Diagram

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Melissa Rethlefsen ◽  
Matthew James Page
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Information Source ◽  
Original Version ◽  
Flow Diagram ◽  
Sufficient Detail ◽  
The Common ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Systematic Review Process

PRISMA 2020 and PRISMA-S are newly released guidelines to help systematic review teams report their reviews clearly, transparently, and with sufficient detail to enable reproducibility. PRISMA 2020, the updated version of the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) statement, is complemented by PRISMA-S, an extension to PRISMA focusing on reporting the search components of systematic reviews. Several significant changes were implemented in PRISMA 2020 and PRISMA-S when compared with the original version of PRISMA in 2009, including the recommendation to report search strategies for all databases, registries, and websites that were searched. PRISMA-S also recommends reporting the number of records identified from each information source. One of the most challenging aspects of the new guidance from both documents has been changes to the flow diagram. In this article, we review some of the common questions about using the PRISMA 2020 flow diagram and tracking records through the systematic review process.

scholarly journals Canvas Framework for Performing Systematic Reviews Analysis

2018 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 65
Author(s):  
Fernando Almeida
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Review Of The Literature ◽  
New Approach ◽  
Good Practices ◽  
Scientific Domain ◽  
Research Theme ◽  
New Directions ◽  
Systematic Review Process

<p class="Textoindependiente21">The systematic review of the literature is a fundamental methodology for analyzing critically the existing literature on a given research theme. They are designed to be methodical, replicable and guide the author in identifying the main lines of investigation and conclusions in each scientific domain and, in addition, help them in the identification of new directions of research. However, the systematic review process is typically viewed as too heterogeneous, complex and time-consuming. In this sense, it is pertinent to propose a new approach for conducting systematic reviews that may be more agile, not only in terms of development, but also in the analysis of the results of a systematic review process. This article presents a canvas framework for conducting a systematic review composed of nine blocks and based on a set of identified good practices found in the literature, in which it is possible to easily identify all the steps of the process, options taken, and main results.</p>

scholarly journals Cochrane Interactive Learning

2018 ◽  
Vol 106 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kate Ghezzi-Kopel
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Interactive Learning ◽  
Educational Tool ◽  
Learning Tool ◽  
Systematic Review Process

Cochrane Interactive Learning (CIL) is a modular, self-directed, educational tool for researchers performing systematic reviews. Systematic reviews present unbiased, transparent, and reproducible syntheses of all research pertaining to a well-formulated question and are a critical tool to inform clinical practice and decision-making. Researchers must adhere to a rigorous set of standards when performing systematic reviews, and robust training is required to learn the complex requirements of the methodology. CIL provides an accessible, well-designed, step-by-step guide for navigating the systematic review process. This resource review outlines the major features of CIL and discusses the usability and accessibility of this learning tool for both researchers and librarians.

The Systematic Review: A Potential Tool for Research-Grounded Library Management

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Margaret Law
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Health Sciences ◽  
Library Management ◽  
Revue Systématique ◽  
Systematic Review Process ◽  
Potential Tool ◽  
Management Issues

The systematic review process, as defined for the health sciences, is examined as a potential tool for integrating research into library management. Issues are identified concerning the management environment, the research and its application. Suggestions are made to modify the process to make it more suitable for the LIS field.Le processus de revue systématique, tel que défini par les sciences de la santé, est examiné comme un outil potentiel pour intégrer la recherche en gestion des bibliothèques. Des problèmes concernant l’environnement de gestion, la recherche et son application sont identifiés. Des suggestions sont faites pour modifier le processus afin de le rendre plus adapté au domaine de la BSI. 

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document