scholarly journals Building the Systematic Review Core in an academic health sciences library

2019 ◽  
Vol 107 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mellanye J. Lackey ◽  
Heidi Greenberg ◽  
Melissa L. Rethlefsen
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Executive Director ◽  
Financial Support ◽  
Service Providers ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Health Sciences ◽  
Subject Matter Experts ◽  
A Charge ◽  
Procedural Decisions

Background: The authors present efforts to build capacity at our institution for conducting systematic reviews and other forms of evidence synthesis through partnerships and a recharge model. This report describes how we successfully created and launched a for-fee systematic review core at our library.Case Presentation: Throughout 2014 and 2015, library leadership proposed different models for getting institutional and financial support for librarians and staff to better support university researchers conducting systematic reviews. Though well received, initial requests for financial support were not funded. The executive director of the Health Sciences Library released two years’ worth of salary and benefits to fund an evidence synthesis and retrieval librarian position. With this new position, the team formed a charge-back core facility in partnership with our university’s Clinical Translation and Science Award hub. A series of procedural decisions and operational changes helped the group achieve success. Within eighteen months after launching the Systematic Review Core, we reached maximum capacity with more than twenty ongoing reviews.Discussion: Assigning a dollar value to our expertise put us on par with other subject matter experts on campus and actually drove demand. We could act as paid consultants in research projects and shifted the perception of librarians from service providers to research partners. Affiliating with our partners was key to our success and boosted our ability to strengthen our campus’ research infrastructure.

scholarly journals Systematic reviews and evidence synthesis: Resources beyond the health sciences

2018 ◽  
Vol 79 (5) ◽  
pp. 248 ◽  
Author(s):  
Megan Kocher ◽  
Amy Riegelman
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Research Evidence ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Health Sciences ◽  
University Of Minnesota ◽  
The Social ◽  
The University

Asystematic review is a type of review that “seeks to systematically search for, appraise and synthesis research evidence,”1 including results published in grey literature. For decades, systematic reviews have been widely used to synthesize evidence in the health sciences. More recently, other disciplines, such as agriculture and the social sciences, have seen a rise in systematic reviews and related research methodologies. In response to this development, both Cornell University2 and the University of Minnesota Libraries3 have launched systematic review services that explicitly cater to non-health-sciences researchers at their institutions. Because it is recommended that librarians play a part on systematic review teams,4 there is a need for resources and skill development in this area.

scholarly journals Transforming the systematic review service: a team-based model to support the educational needs of researchers

2018 ◽  
Vol 106 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephanie Clare Roth
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Educational Needs ◽  
Health Sciences ◽  
Educational Services ◽  
Educational Service ◽  
Service Model ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Health Care Settings

To meet the current needs of researchers who perform systematic reviews in health care settings, libraries need to provide high-quality educational services for researchers as part of their systematic review services. A team of librarians with diverse skills is also important for ensuring the growth and sustainability of systematic review services. This commentary describes a new team-based systematic review service model that can transform systematic review services by providing a pathway for librarians to offer a comprehensive educational service for systematic review research in a variety of health sciences library settings.

scholarly journals Methods of conduct and reporting of living systematic reviews: a protocol for a living methodological survey

F1000Research ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
pp. 221 ◽  
Author(s):  
Assem M. Khamis ◽  
Lara A. Kahale ◽  
Hector Pardo-Hernandez ◽  
Holger J. Schünemann ◽  
Elie A. Akl
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Cross Sectional Survey ◽  
Systematic Review Methodology ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Prospective Longitudinal ◽  
Over Time

Background: The living systematic review (LSR) is an emerging approach for improved evidence synthesis that uses continual updating to include relevant new evidence as soon as it is published. The objectives of this study are to: 1) assess the methods of conduct and reporting of living systematic reviews using a living study approach; and 2) describe the life cycle of living systematic reviews, i.e., describe the changes over time to their methods and findings. Methods: For objective 1, we will begin by conducting a cross-sectional survey and then update its findings every 6 months by including newly published LSRs. For objective 2, we will conduct a prospective longitudinal follow-up of the cohort of included LSRs. To identify LSRs, we will continually search the following electronic databases: Medline, EMBASE and the Cochrane library. We will also contact groups conducting LSRs to identify eligible studies that we might have missed. We will follow the standard systematic review methodology for study selection and data abstraction. For each LSR update, we will abstract information on the following: 1) general characteristics, 2) systematic review methodology, 3) living approach methodology, 4) results, and 5) editorial and publication processes. We will update the findings of both the surveys and the longitudinal follow-up of included LSRs every 6 months. In addition, we will identify articles addressing LSR methods to be included in an ‘LSR methods repository’. Conclusion: The proposed living methodological survey will allow us to monitor how the methods of conduct, and reporting as well as the findings of LSRs change over time. Ultimately this should help with ensuring the quality and transparency of LSRs.

scholarly journals PRISMA2020: an R package and Shiny app for producing PRISMA 2020-compliant flow diagrams, with interactivity for optimised digital transparency and Open Synthesis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Neal R Haddaway ◽  
Matthew J Page ◽  
Christopher C Pritchard ◽  
Luke A McGuinness
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Science Communication ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
R Package ◽  
Web Based ◽  
Shiny App ◽  
Data Files ◽  
Flow Diagrams

Background Reporting standards, such as PRISMA aim to ensure that the methods and results of systematic reviews are described in sufficient detail to allow full transparency. Flow diagrams in evidence syntheses allow the reader to rapidly understand the core procedures used in a review and examine the attrition of irrelevant records throughout the review process. Recent research suggests that use of flow diagrams in systematic reviews is poor and of low quality and called for standardised templates to facilitate better reporting in flow diagrams. The increasing options for interactivity provided by the Internet gives us an opportunity to support easy-to-use evidence synthesis tools, and here we report on the development of tools for the production of PRISMA 2020-compliant systematic review flow diagrams. Methods and Findings We developed a free-to-use, Open Source R package and web-based Shiny app to allow users to design PRISMA flow diagrams for their own systematic reviews. Our tools allow users to produce standardised visualisations that transparently document the methods and results of a systematic review process in a variety of formats. In addition, we provide the opportunity to produce interactive, web-based flow diagrams (exported as HTML files), that allow readers to click on boxes of the diagram and navigate to further details on methods, results or data files. We provide an interactive example here; https://driscoll.ntu.ac.uk/prisma/. Conclusions We have developed a user-friendly suite of tools for producing PRISMA 2020-compliant flow diagrams for users with coding experience and, importantly, for users without prior experience in coding by making use of Shiny. These free-to-use tools will make it easier to produce clear and PRISMA 2020-compliant systematic review flow diagrams. Significantly, users can also produce interactive flow diagrams for the first time, allowing readers of their reviews to smoothly and swiftly explore and navigate to further details of the methods and results of a review. We believe these tools will increase use of PRISMA flow diagrams, improve the compliance and quality of flow diagrams, and facilitate strong science communication of the methods and results of systematic reviews by making use of interactivity. We encourage the systematic review community to make use of these tools, and provide feedback to streamline and improve their usability and efficiency.

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 The development and evaluation of an online application to assist in the extraction of data from graphs for use in systematic reviews

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
pp. 157
Author(s):  
Fala Cramond ◽  
Alison O'Mara-Eves ◽  
Lee Doran-Constant ◽  
Andrew SC Rice ◽  
Malcolm Macleod ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Statistical Data ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Online Application ◽  
Web Based ◽  
Graphical Data ◽  
Data Extraction Tool ◽  
Increase In Accuracy

Background: The extraction of data from the reports of primary studies, on which the results of systematic reviews depend, needs to be carried out accurately. To aid reliability, it is recommended that two researchers carry out data extraction independently. The extraction of statistical data from graphs in PDF files is particularly challenging, as the process is usually completely manual, and reviewers need sometimes to revert to holding a ruler against the page to read off values: an inherently time-consuming and error-prone process. Methods: To mitigate some of the above problems we integrated and customised two existing JavaScript libraries to create a new web-based graphical data extraction tool to assist reviewers in extracting data from graphs. This tool aims to facilitate more accurate and timely data extraction through a user interface which can be used to extract data through mouse clicks. We carried out a non-inferiority evaluation to examine its performance in comparison to standard practice. Results: We found that the customised graphical data extraction tool is not inferior to users’ prior preferred current approaches. Our study was not designed to show superiority, but suggests that there may be a saving in time of around 6 minutes per graph, accompanied by a substantial increase in accuracy. Conclusions: Our study suggests that the incorporation of this type of tool in online systematic review software would be beneficial in facilitating the production of accurate and timely evidence synthesis to improve decision-making.

scholarly journals Automation of literature screening using machine learning in medical evidence synthesis: a diagnostic test accuracy systematic review protocol

2022 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Yuelun Zhang ◽  
Siyu Liang ◽  
Yunying Feng ◽  
Qing Wang ◽  
Feng Sun ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Digital Library ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Test Accuracy ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Medical Evidence ◽  
Evidence Collection ◽  
Automatic Methods

Abstract Background Systematic review is an indispensable tool for optimal evidence collection and evaluation in evidence-based medicine. However, the explosive increase of the original literatures makes it difficult to accomplish critical appraisal and regular update. Artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms have been applied to automate the literature screening procedure in medical systematic reviews. In these studies, different algorithms were used and results with great variance were reported. It is therefore imperative to systematically review and analyse the developed automatic methods for literature screening and their effectiveness reported in current studies. Methods An electronic search will be conducted using PubMed, Embase, ACM Digital Library, and IEEE Xplore Digital Library databases, as well as literatures found through supplementary search in Google scholar, on automatic methods for literature screening in systematic reviews. Two reviewers will independently conduct the primary screening of the articles and data extraction, in which nonconformities will be solved by discussion with a methodologist. Data will be extracted from eligible studies, including the basic characteristics of study, the information of training set and validation set, and the function and performance of AI algorithms, and summarised in a table. The risk of bias and applicability of the eligible studies will be assessed by the two reviewers independently based on Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2). Quantitative analyses, if appropriate, will also be performed. Discussion Automating systematic review process is of great help in reducing workload in evidence-based practice. Results from this systematic review will provide essential summary of the current development of AI algorithms for automatic literature screening in medical evidence synthesis and help to inspire further studies in this field. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42020170815 (28 April 2020).

scholarly journals Promoting evidence-based practice: training health professionals for the evidence synthesis

2021 ◽  
Vol 55 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniela Filipa Batista Cardoso ◽  
Diana Gabriela Simões Marques Santos ◽  
Joana Filipa Cunha Rodrigues ◽  
Nichole Bento ◽  
Rogério Manuel Clemente Rodrigues ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Training Program ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Health Professionals ◽  
Evidence Based Practice ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Centre Of Excellence ◽  
Satisfaction Evaluation ◽  
Students Satisfaction

ABSTRACT Objective: To report the experience of the Portugal Centre For Evidence Based Practice (PCEBP): a JBI Centre of Excellence in the training of health professionals, researchers, and professors in the Comprehensive Systematic Review Training Program, a course on Evidence Synthesis, specifically on Systematic Literature Reviews. Method: This article aims to report the experience of the Portugal Centre For Evidence Based Practice: a JBI Centre of Excellence in the implementation of the Comprehensive Systematic Review Training Program that trains health professionals, researchers, and teachers to develop Systematic Reviews, according to the JBI approach. Results: By the end of 2020, 11 editions of the course had been developed with 136 participants from different educational and health institutions, from different countries. As a result of the training of these participants, 13 systematic reviews were published in JBI Evidence Synthesis and 10 reviews were published in other journals. Conclusion: The reported results and the students’ satisfaction evaluation allow us to emphasize the relevance of the course for health professionals training on evidence synthesis.

scholarly journals Borrowing trouble? The impact of a systematic review service on interlibrary loan borrowing in an academic health sciences library

2021 ◽  
Vol 109 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Christy Jarvis ◽  
Joan Marcotte Gregory ◽  
Alison Mortensen-Hayes ◽  
Mary McFarland
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Full Text ◽  
Health Sciences ◽  
Financial Impact ◽  
Interlibrary Loan ◽  
Data Set ◽  
Academic Health ◽  
Sample Data ◽  
The Impact

Background: With the mandate to review all available literature in the study’s inclusion parameters, systematic review projects are likely to require full-text access to a significant number of articles that are not available in a library’s collection, thereby necessitating ordering content via interlibrary loan (ILL). The aim of this study is to understand what effect a systematic review service has on the copyright royalty fees accompanying ILL requests at an academic health sciences library.Case Presentation: The library created a custom report using ILLiad data to look specifically at 2018 ILL borrowing requests that were known to be part of systematic reviews. This subset of borrowing activity was then analyzed to determine its impact on the library’s copyright royalty expenditures for the year. In 2018, copyright eligible borrowing requests that were known to be part of systematic reviews represented only approximately 5% of total filled requests that involved copyright eligible borrowing. However, these systematic review requests directly or indirectly caused approximately 10% of all the Spencer S. Eccles Library copyright royalty expenditures for 2018 requests.Conclusion: Based on the sample data set, the library’s copyright royalty expenditures did increase, but the overall financial impact was modest.

scholarly journals 2050

2017 ◽  
Vol 1 (S1) ◽  
pp. 42-43
Author(s):  
Melissa L. Rethlefsen ◽  
Mellanye Lackey ◽  
Michelle Fiander ◽  
Mary McFarland
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Search Strategy ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Translational Science ◽  
University Of Utah ◽  
The Core ◽  
The University ◽  
Strategy Design

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: To improve the quality of evidence synthesis projects, including systematic reviews and other comparative effectiveness reviews, at the University of Utah. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Systematic reviews and other types of evidence syntheses are best when collaborative teams with expertise in multiple disciplines participate, including content experts, librarians and information specialists, systematic review methodologists, and statisticians. The Center for Clinical & Translational Science (CCTS), due to its interdisciplinary nature, connectivity to clinical experts, and existing Cores of methodologists, presented an opportune location for a Systematic Review Core. We designed the Systematic Review Core to focus on 2 primary aspects of evidence synthesis support: overall systematic review methodology guidance and in-depth information retrieval planning and execution. After establishing a conceptual partnership, a new position, Evidence Retrieval and Synthesis Librarian, was created to build capacity within the Core. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Close connections with the CCTS’s Population Health Research Foundation have led to better interdisciplinary coverage of systematic reviews and other evidence syntheses produced by the University of Utah. We are able to partner with statisticians and clinical experts from formulating the question to completing the final manuscript. Hourly rates charged through a cost recovery model have enabled us to grow our staff able to work on the Core, as well as offset costs for major databases and resources these bibliographic data-heavy research methods require. After 1 year of existence, the Core is already at maximum capacity, with no sign of slowing. Projects have ranged from brief consultations to highly intense interactions for the duration of the research spectrum. We have also been added as key personnel to grants with systematic review components. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: Systematic reviews and other evidence syntheses are a labor-intense, interdisciplinary team effort that fit well within the scope of CTSA’s. They are a key component of the translation of science to practice, and can be used at all stages of the translational science spectrum. Quality of systematic reviews remains poor, particularly surrounding protocol development, sensitive search strategy design and reporting, and overall reporting. Librarians and information specialist involvement has been shown to positively correlate to the search strategy design and reporting aspects of systematic reviews, and librarians and information specialists increasingly act as systematic review methodologists. By including librarians and information specialists as part of the CTSA’s official Core structure, these systematic review methodologists are able to connect with statisticians, other methodologists, and clinical experts in a nexus of interdisciplinarity. At the University of Utah, the visibility and structure provided by the CCTS helps the Systematic Review Core with promotion, creating connections and opportunities for collaboration across the campus. This partnership has already led to increased uptake in services, and over time, we believe it will increase the quality of the science produced. CTSA’s have a natural partner with their health science library colleagues in translational science, as shown by this model.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document