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.

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 An environmental scan of librarian involvement in systematic reviews at Queen’s University: 2020 update

2021 ◽  
Vol 42 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Amanda Ross-White
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Research Methodology ◽  
Time Frame ◽  
Health Sciences ◽  
The Body ◽  
Environmental Scan ◽  
Queen's University ◽  
Meta Analyses

Introduction Systematic reviews are a growing research methodology in the health sciences, and in other disciplines, having a significant impact on librarian workload. In a follow up to an earlier study, an environmental scan was conducted at Queen's University to determine what impact, if any, the introduction of a tiered service had on review publications where at least one co-author was from Queen's. Methods A search was conducted in PubMed and the Joanna Briggs database to find systematic reviews and meta-analyses with at least one author from Queen's University for the five-year time since the last environmental scan. Reviews were categorized by the degree of involvement of the librarian(s): librarian as co-author, librarian named in the acknowledgements, no known librarian involvement in the review. Results Of 453 systematic reviews published in the five-year time frame, nearly 20% (89) had a librarian named as co-author. A further 24.5% (110) acknowledged the role of a librarian in the search, either in the acknowledgements section or in the body of the text of the article. In just over half of reviews (235 or 51.8%) a librarian was either not involved, or was not explicitly acknowledged in some capacity. Librarian involvement represented a wider range of persons and institutions. Conclusion In the five years since the last environmental scan, an increasing number of reviews recognize the role of the librarian in publishing systematic reviews, either through co-authorship or named acknowledgement. Also, as more librarians became involved in systematic reviews, librarian capacity has increased.

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 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 Necessity of dural tenting sutures in modern neurosurgery: protocol for a systematic review

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. e027904 ◽  
Author(s):  
Łukasz Przepiórka ◽  
Przemysław Kunert ◽  
Jarosław Żyłkowski ◽  
Jan Fortuniak ◽  
Patrycja Larysz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Potential Space ◽  
Inclusion Criteria ◽  
The Past ◽  
Prisma Statement ◽  
Ethical Committee Approval ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
Review Protocol

IntroductionThe ongoing need for dural tenting sutures in a contemporary neurosurgical practice has been questioned in the literature for over two decades. In the past, these sutures were supposed to prevent blood collecting in the potential space between the skull and the dura by elevating the latter. Theoretically, with modern haemostasis and proper postoperative care, this technique should not be necessary and the surgery time can be shortened. Unfortunately, there is no evidence-based proof to either support or reject this hypothesis.Methods and analysisThe systematic review will be performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement and The Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Eight electronic databases of peer-reviewed journals will be searched, as well as other sources. Eligible articles will be assessed against inclusion criteria. The intervention is not tenting the dura and this will be compared with the usual dural tenting sutures. Where possible, ‘summary of findings’ tables will be generated.Ethics and disseminationEthical committee approval is not required for a systematic review protocol. Findings will be presented at international neurosurgical conferences and published in a peer-reviewed medical journal.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42018097089.

scholarly journals Trends analysis of cancer topic of Cochrane systematic reviews: a bibliometric analysis

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kelu Yang ◽  
Ya Gao ◽  
Yitong Cai ◽  
Ming Liu ◽  
Cuncun Lu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Epidemiological Data ◽  
Developed Countries ◽  
The Past ◽  
Cochrane Database ◽  
Scientific Outputs ◽  
The Developed Countries ◽  
Number Of Publications ◽  
Review Manager

Abstract Purpose: To comprehensively analyze the scientific outputs of cancer topic of Cochrane systematic reviews (Cancer-CSR). Patients and methods: Cochrane Database of Systematic Review and Web of Science Core Collection were retrieved limited from Jan. 1, 2009 to Dec. 12, 2018. CiteSpace IV and Excel 2018 were applied to analyze and visualize the literature information. Results: Ultimately, 607 Cancer-CSR were retrieved, 32 countries, 179 institutions and 260 authors involved. The number of publications in Cancer-CSR has been increasing over the past decades (25(2009)-77(2018)). UK, USA, Canada, Australia, and Germany worked closely with other countries, especially UK (n=361) has taken the lead in this field. The top 10 contributive institutions, which were almost came from developed countries, collaborated closely with other institutions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, C Hdb Sys and J Clin Oncol were the top three journal/book with the highest co-citation. The top three co-cited references were the two different version of Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews and the guidelines of Review Manager. The biggest cluster of keywords “cytoreductive surgery (CRS)” and the latest clusters “visual inspection” and “non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug” were the most promising hotspots. Conclusions: Cancer-CSR has been increasing. Most of the reviews were came from the developed countries as well as the institutes in these countries. The knowledge base of were the methodology studies of systematic review, epidemiological data of cancer, and the reporting guideline of systematic reviews. The adjuvant therapy combined CRS, the screening of skin cancer and the management of cancer-related pain were the hotspots.

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 An Exploration of Systematic Review Publication Trends in Conservation Biology Journals

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jocelyn Boice
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Conservation Biology ◽  
Research Methodology ◽  
Literature Search ◽  
Search Strategies ◽  
Literature Searching ◽  
Publication Trends ◽  
Information Professionals ◽  
Search Quality

Researchers in conservation biology and other non-medical fields are adopting systematic review as a research methodology. Since this methodology requires extensive and well-documented literature searching, it is beneficial for information professionals to understand disciplinary developments in its use. This article investigates trends in systematic review publication in conservation biology journals between 1998 and 2017 and examines the prevalence of search reporting among these systematic reviews. Results show an increase in published systematic reviews over the study period, and the majority of these include a description of the literature search. However, evidence of variable search quality and reporting indicates an important role for librarians in improving literature search strategies and documentation.

scholarly journals For Your Enrichment: A Model for Developing and Implementing a Systematic Review Service for Disciplines outside of the Health Sciences

2018 ◽  
Vol 58 (1) ◽  
pp. 22 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amy Riegelman ◽  
Megan Kocher
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Health Sciences ◽  
The Social ◽  
Reference Librarians ◽  
Meta Analyses

Support for systematic reviews and meta-analyses in the social sciences is an innovative service that makes advanced use of the expert skills of reference librarians and subject specialists. This column provides a deep look into the launch of one systematic review service to provide a model that is adaptable for other academic and special libraries.—Editor

scholarly journals Burnout among medical and health sciences information professionals who support systematic reviews: an exploratory study

2020 ◽  
Vol 108 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Michelle R. Demetres ◽  
Drew N. Wright ◽  
Antonio P. DeRosa
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Exploratory Study ◽  
Health Sciences ◽  
Support Tool ◽  
Work Related ◽  
Information Professionals ◽  
Job Duties

Objective: The aim of this exploratory study was to assess personal, work-related, and client-related burnout among information professionals who support systematic review (SR) work.Methods: The Copenhagen Burnout Inventory, a validated tool for assessing burnout, was administered to information professionals who support SR work. A broad range of health sciences or medical librarians and information professionals were targeted via professional email discussion lists and news outlets. Questionnaire responses were captured electronically using Qualtrics Survey Software and quantitatively analyzed.Results: Respondents experienced an average personal burnout score of 48.6, work-related score of 46.4, and client-related score of 32.5 out of 100. Respondents who reported spending >80% of their job duties on SR work had significantly lower personal burnout scores than those who reported spending <10% of their job duties on SR work (average, 31.5 versus 50.9, respectively). Also, respondents who reported using an SR support tool had significantly lower personal burnout scores than those who reported sometimes using a tool (average, 43.7 versus 54.7, respectively).Conclusion: The results suggest that information professionals who dedicate more time to SR work or who consistently use an SR support tool experience less burnout. This study provides groundwork for further investigation with the aim of developing approaches to prevent or combat SR-related burnout among information professionals.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document