The hidden benefits of helping students with systematic reviews

Hanneke, Rosie

doi:10.5195/jmla.2018.420

Cited by 7 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Librarians have also reported a number of collaboration challenges related to methodological issues that affect the quality of reviews [10]. Most recently, librarians have been grappling with how best to support students conducting systematic reviews [10, 12, 13].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

McKeown

Ross‐White

2019

jmla

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

McKeown

Ross‐White

2019

jmla

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Unfortunately, it is often clear during these consultations that these students are not being formally trained in KS search methods, reporting standards, or citation management solutions. Further evidence indicates this is not just happening at our institution [3][4][5][6].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 81%

Explaining the method behind our madness: 3-part series on comprehensive searches for knowledge syntheses

Nekolaichuk

Fuller

2019

J Can Health Libr Assoc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Moreover, when teaching the didactics on informatics and EBP, helping students learn best practice principles such as searching multiple databases, including study registries, and looking for databases in other languages will provide a breadth and range of findings and reduce bias in results. By becoming competent in these informatics skills, health care professionals can implement these sound techniques throughout their careers and continue to verify that their practice is based on evidence (Crabtree et al, 2017 ; Hanneke, 2018 ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Nick

Sarpy

2022

Worldviews Ev Based Nurs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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-Englishlanguage 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-Englishlanguage databases, using multiple data sources, and searching study registries. By following PRISMA-S guidelines to report data sources correctly, reproducibility can be accomplished.

show abstract

The hidden benefits of helping students with systematic reviews

Cited by 7 publications

References 8 publications

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

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

Explaining the method behind our madness: 3-part series on comprehensive searches for knowledge syntheses

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About