The hidden benefits of helping students with systematic reviews

An analysis of data sources and study registries used in systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

Reporting standards for data sources in systematic reviews (SRs) have been developed, yet research shows varying compliance in the methods section. When this happens, replication of search results is difficult and creates ambiguous and biased data sources.

AIMS

This study captured author practices in choosing English and non-English-language databases, listing all the databases searched, and incorporating study registries as part of the search strategy.

METHODS

Using an analytic, cross-sectional, study design, volunteer data collectors (n = 107) searched one of two assigned English language platforms for SRs on specified health conditions. All the data sources found in the methods section of each SR were documented and analyzed for patterns using bibliographic techniques.

RESULTS

The final sample size of the SRs reviewed was N = 199. The mean number of data sources seen in the SRs was 3.9 (SD 2), with a range of 1-10. Eighteen records (9%) used a single data source to conduct the SRs. Four leading language platforms were seen in the SRs: English (100% of occurrences), up to 8% used Chinese data sources, and 4% included Spanish or Portuguese. The four most frequently used data sources were: (1) Medline (98%), (2) Embase (65%), (3) Cochrane Library (56%), and (4) Web of Science (33%). The percentage of SRs listing study registries was 30%.

LINKING EVIDENCE TO ACTION

Strategies to reduce bias and increase the rigor and reliability of SRs include comprehensive search practices by exploring non-English-language databases, using multiple data sources, and searching study registries. By following PRISMA-S guidelines to report data sources correctly, reproducibility can be accomplished.

Planning Library Instruction Research: Building Conceptual Models with Theoretical Frameworks

Engagement with theories and theoretical frameworks in the planning and conduct of research about library instruction, in conjunction with the existing evidence base, can help researchers develop coherent conceptual models to justify the research approach and importance of the research produced. This column describes some of the limitations of common evaluation approaches that lack explicit theoretical framing and provides definitions of concepts that allow practitioners and researchers alike to explore and understand the complexities of educational encounters. Using an illustrative study with a theoretical framework applying sociomaterialism and related theories, this article presents arguments for in-depth explorations of informatics education through qualitative research.

Building capacity for librarian support and addressing collaboration challenges by formalizing library systematic review services

BACKGROUND

Many health sciences librarians are noticing an increase in demand for systematic review support. Developing a strategic approach to supporting systematic review activities can address commonly reported barriers and challenges including time factors, methodological issues, and supporting student-led projects.

CASE PRESENTATION

This case report describes how a health sciences library at a mid-sized university developed and implemented a structured and defined systematic review service in order to build capacity for increased librarian support and to maximize librarians' time and expertise. The process also revealed underlying collaboration challenges related to student-led systematic reviews and research quality concerns that needed to be addressed. The steps for developing a formal service included defining the librarian's role and a library service model, building librarian expertise, developing documentation to guide librarians and patrons, piloting and revising the service model, marketing and promoting the service, and evaluating service usage.

CONCLUSIONS

The two-tiered service model developed for advisory consultation and collaboration provides a framework for supporting systematic review activities that other libraries can adapt to meet their own needs. Librarian autonomy in deciding whether to collaborate on reviews based on defined and explicit considerations was crucial for maximizing librarians' time and expertise and for promoting higher quality research. Monitoring service usage will be imperative for managing existing and future librarian workload. These data and tracking of research outputs from librarian collaborations may also be used to advocate for new librarian positions.