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 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 Evidentiary function of systematic reviews of scientific literature: Epistemological foundations and methodological derivatives

2021 ◽  
pp. 25-40
Author(s):  
N. S. Babich
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Selection Criteria ◽  
Scientific Literature ◽  
Scientific Communication ◽  
Scientific Investigation ◽  
The Social ◽  
Essential Components ◽  
And Migration

The author analyzes implicit epistemological assumptions of the modern systematic reviews of scientific literatures that usually are left unconsidered or problematized. The foundations for building the image of scientific communication as representative, clearly cut and easily analyzed reflection of efficient search for and spread of truth which approaching is characterized by increased explorers’ consent. Generalization of this communication brings the evidential effect to advance argument in scientific discussions. However, a series of conditions for adequate conversion and «migration» of published conclusions into the conclusions of systematic review has to be provided to preserve evidential effect in summarizing analysis. The essential components of systematic reviewing methodology comprise: setting the task of obtaining quantified results; selection criteria for unambiguous correspondence between the model of process under scientific investigation and totality of publications; representative observation of relevant publications and making conclusions based on comparative evidential effect of research and consent level achieved. The systematic reviews compliant with the above requirements make them a powerful instrument of evidence in the social sciences, biology and medicine.

scholarly journals Social Science Teachers' Critical Engagement with Best Evidence Synthesis Research

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Michael Alan Taylor
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Critical Thinking ◽  
Social Science ◽  
Science Teachers ◽  
Teacher Identity ◽  
Research Evidence ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Critical Engagement ◽  
The Social ◽  
Best Evidence Synthesis

<p>This thesis draws on qualitative data gathered in focus group discussions, and interviews with ten teachers and three academics to examine social science teachers' critical engagement with Effective Pedagogy in the Social Sciences /Tikanga-a-iwi Best Evidence Synthesis (Aitken & Sinnema, 2008). To assess teachers' critical engagement with the Social Science BES, the thesis develops a modified model designed to encourage critical thinking. The methodological approach involved recording two phases of self-directed teacher discussion before and after the introduction of the modified critical thinking model. The findings suggest that the model supported teachers in the short term, especially those participants for whom critical thinking about research evidence was a novelty. The model had little impact, however, for teachers with more critical thinking skills. A lack of accountability, entrenched teacher identity, and socio-centric dialogue were identified as barriers to the teachers' critical engagement with the Social Sciences BES. Further findings provide insight into how over-assimilation and inattention to the complexity of research evidence risk undermining the integrity of teacher inquiry. The thesis concludes with a discussion about the difficulty of teachers critically engaging with the Social Sciences BES and offers recommendations for different levels of the education system that might help facilitate critical engagement with Social Sciences BES research.</p>

scholarly journals Systematic Reviews in Theory and Practice for Library and Information Studies

2012 ◽  
Vol 36 (112) ◽  
pp. 6-15 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sue F Phelps ◽  
Nicole Campbell
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Theory And Practice ◽  
Specific Question ◽  
The Social ◽  
Library And Information Studies ◽  
Information Studies ◽  
Care Field

This article is about the use of systematic reviews as a research methodology in library and information studies (LIS). A systematic review is an attempt to gather all of the research on a given topic in order to answer a specific question. They have been used extensively in the health care field and have more recently found their way into the social sciences, including librarianship. Examples of the use of systematic reviews in LIS illustrate the benefits and challenges to using this methodology. Included is a brief description of how to conduct a review and a reading list for further information.

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.

scholarly journals Social Science Teachers' Critical Engagement with Best Evidence Synthesis Research

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Michael Alan Taylor
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Critical Thinking ◽  
Social Science ◽  
Science Teachers ◽  
Teacher Identity ◽  
Research Evidence ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Critical Engagement ◽  
The Social ◽  
Best Evidence Synthesis

<p>This thesis draws on qualitative data gathered in focus group discussions, and interviews with ten teachers and three academics to examine social science teachers' critical engagement with Effective Pedagogy in the Social Sciences /Tikanga-a-iwi Best Evidence Synthesis (Aitken & Sinnema, 2008). To assess teachers' critical engagement with the Social Science BES, the thesis develops a modified model designed to encourage critical thinking. The methodological approach involved recording two phases of self-directed teacher discussion before and after the introduction of the modified critical thinking model. The findings suggest that the model supported teachers in the short term, especially those participants for whom critical thinking about research evidence was a novelty. The model had little impact, however, for teachers with more critical thinking skills. A lack of accountability, entrenched teacher identity, and socio-centric dialogue were identified as barriers to the teachers' critical engagement with the Social Sciences BES. Further findings provide insight into how over-assimilation and inattention to the complexity of research evidence risk undermining the integrity of teacher inquiry. The thesis concludes with a discussion about the difficulty of teachers critically engaging with the Social Sciences BES and offers recommendations for different levels of the education system that might help facilitate critical engagement with Social Sciences BES research.</p>

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document