Assessing the roles and challenges of librarians in dental systematic and scoping reviews

Scoping review search practices in the social sciences: A scoping review

A thorough literature search is a key feature of scoping reviews. We investigated the search practices used by social science researchers as reported in their scoping reviews. We collected scoping reviews published between 2015 and 2021 from Social Science Citation Index. In the 2484 included studies, we observed a 58% average annual increase in published reviews, primarily from clinical and applied social science disciplines. Bibliographic databases comprised most of the information sources in the primary search strategy (n = 9565, 75%), although reporting practices varied. Most scoping reviews (n = 1805, 73%) included at least one supplementary search strategy. A minority of studies (n = 713, 29%) acknowledged an LIS professional and few listed one as a co-author (n = 194, 8%). We conclude that to improve reporting and strengthen the impact of the scoping review method in the social sciences, researchers should consider (1) adhering to PRISMA-S reporting guidelines, (2) employing more supplementary search strategies, and (3) collaborating with LIS professionals.

The relationship between methodological quality and the use of retracted publications in evidence syntheses

BACKGROUND

Evidence syntheses cite retracted publications. However, citation is not necessarily endorsement, as authors may be criticizing or refuting its findings. We investigated the sentiment of these citations-whether they were critical or supportive-and associations with the methodological quality of the evidence synthesis, reason for the retraction, and time between publication and retraction.

METHODS

Using a sample of 286 evidence syntheses containing 324 citations to retracted publications in the field of pharmacy, we used AMSTAR-2 to assess methodological quality. We used scite.ai and a human screener to determine citation sentiment. We conducted a Pearson's chi-square test to assess associations between citation sentiment, methodological quality, and reason for retraction, and one-way ANOVAs to investigate association between time, methodological quality, and citation sentiment.

RESULTS

Almost 70% of the evidence syntheses in our sample were of critically low quality. We found that these critically low-quality evidence syntheses were more associated with positive statements while high-quality evidence syntheses were more associated with negative citation of retracted publications. In our sample of 324 citations, 20.4% of citations to retracted publications noted that the publication had been retracted.

CONCLUSION

The association between high-quality evidence syntheses and recognition of a publication's retracted status may indicate that best practices are sufficient. However, the volume of critically low-quality evidence syntheses ultimately perpetuates the citation of retracted publications with no indication of their retracted status. Strengthening journal requirements around the quality of evidence syntheses may lessen the inappropriate citation of retracted publications.

Systematic review support received and needed by researchers: a survey of libraries supporting Ontario medical schools

Introduction

Finding efficient ways to meet the growing demand for library systematic review support is imperative for facilitating the production of high-quality research. The objectives of this study were threefold: 1) to ascertain the systematic review support provided by health sciences libraries at Ontario medical schools and their affiliated hospitals, 2) to determine the perceived educational needs by researchers at these institutions, and 3) to assess the potential usefulness of freely available, online educational modules for researchers that discuss all stages of the systematic review process.

Methods

We conducted a cross-sectional survey in June and July of 2020. Data was analyzed and presented using median and interquartile range (IQR) for continuous measures, and in proportions for categorical measures.

Results

13 of 19 libraries invited provided usable data. Most libraries spent more time supporting systematic reviews via collaboration and participation than by providing educational support. The perceived needs of library users were contrary to the perceived gaps in researcher support provided by the library/institution. All libraries reported they would find freely available, online educational modules useful for training researchers.

Discussion

The next steps for our inter-professional research team will be to develop freely available, online education modules that introduce researchers to all stages of the systematic review process. These modules cannot replace the value that direct support from librarians, biostatisticians or methodology experts can provide, however, they may offer a more efficient way for libraries to familiarize researchers and trainees with best practices and universally accepted reporting guidelines for performing a high-quality review.

The effect of librarian involvement on the quality of systematic reviews in dental medicine

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether librarian or information specialist authorship is associated with better reproducibility of the search, at least three databases searched, and better reporting quality in dental systematic reviews (SRs).

METHODS

SRs from the top ten dental research journals (as determined by Journal Citation Reports and Scimago) were reviewed for search quality and reproducibility by independent reviewers using two Qualtrics survey instruments. Data was reviewed for all SRs based on reproducibility and librarian participation and further reviewed for search quality of reproducible searches.

RESULTS

Librarians were co-authors in only 2.5% of the 913 included SRs and librarians were mentioned or acknowledged in only 9% of included SRs. Librarian coauthors were associated with more reproducible searches, higher search quality, and at least three databases searched. Although the results indicate librarians are associated with improved SR quality, due to the small number of SRs that included a librarian, results were not statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

Despite guidance from organizations that produce SR guidelines recommending the inclusion of a librarian or information specialist on the review team, and despite evidence showing that librarians improve the reproducibility of searches and the reporting of methodology in SRs, librarians are not being included in SRs in the field of dental medicine. The authors of this review recommend the inclusion of a librarian on SR teams in dental medicine and other fields.