Scoping reviews: Establishing the role of the librarian

Journal of the Medical Library Association

Volumn 104, Issue 4, 2016, Pages 346-353

  Morris, Martin ^a   Boruff, Jill T ^a   Gore, Genevieve C ^a  

^a MCGILL UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

HUMAN; INFORMATION RETRIEVAL; LIBRARIAN; LITERATURE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PROCEDURES; PROFESSIONAL STANDARD;

BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; HUMANS; INFORMATION STORAGE AND RETRIEVAL; LIBRARIANS; PROFESSIONAL ROLE; REVIEW LITERATURE AS TOPIC;

EID: 84994709367     PISSN: 15365050     EISSN: 15589439     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3163/1536-5050.104.4.020     Document Type: Review

References (35)

1. Medical Library Association. Role of expert searching in health sciences libraries. J Med Libr Assoc. 2005 Jan; 93(1):42-4.
2. Beck C. Research partner and search methodology expert: the role of the librarian in systematic reviews. In: Raju R, Adam A, Johnson G, Miller C, Pietersen J, eds. The quest for deeper meaning of research support. Cape Town, South Africa: University of Cape Town Libraries; 2015. p. 90-104.
3. McGowan J, Sampson M. Systematic reviews need systematic searchers. J Med Libr Assoc. 2005 Jan; 93(1):74-80.
4. Higgins JP, Green S, Cochrane Collaboration, eds. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Chichester, England, UK: Wiley-Blackwell; 2011. 649 p.
5. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gotzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, Clarke M, Devereaux PJ, Kleijnen J, Moher D. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. Br Med J. 2009 Jul; 339:b2700.
6. McGowan J, Sampson M, Salzwedel DM, Cogo E, Foerster V, Lefebvre C. PRESS Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies: 2015 guideline statement. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016 Jul; 75:40-6. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.01.021.
7. CADTH. PRESS: Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies [Internet]. Ottawa, ON, Canada: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health; 2008 [cited 12 Mar 2016]., https://www.cadth.ca/sites/default/files/pdf/477_PRESS-Peer-Review-Electronic-Search-Strategies_tr_e.pdf.
8. Anderson S, Allen P, Peckham S, Goodwin N. Asking the right questions: scoping studies in the commissioning of research on the organisation and delivery of health services. Health Res Policy Syst. 2008 Jul 9; 6:7.
9. Daudt HML, Van Mossel C, Scott SJ. Enhancing the scoping study methodology: a large, inter-professional team’s experience with Arksey and O’Malley’s framework. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013 Mar 23; 13:48.
10. Davis K, Drey N, Gould D. What are scoping studies? a review of the nursing literature. Int J Nurs Stud. 2009 Oct; 46(10):1386-400.
11. Tricco AC, Soobiah C, Antony J, Cogo E, MacDonald H, Lillie E, Tran J, D’Souza J, Hui W, Perrier L, Welch V, Horsley T, Straus SE, Kastner M. A scoping review identifies multiple emerging knowledge synthesis methods, but few studies operationalize the method. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016 May; 73:19-28. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.08.030.
12. Levac D, Colquhoun H, O’Brien KK. Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implement Sci. 2010 Sep 20; 5: 69.
13. Canadian Institutes for Health Research. A guide to knowledge syntheses [Internet]. Ottawa, ON, Canada: Canadian Institutes for Health Research; 8Apr 2010 [cited 12 Mar 2016].,http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/41382.html.
14. Mays N, Roberts E, Popay J. Synthesising research evidence. In: Fulop N, Allen P, Clarke A, Black N, eds. Studying the organisation and delivery of health services: research methods. London, UK: Routledge; 2001.
15. Cooper ID. What is a “mapping study?” J Med Libr Assoc. 2016 Jan; 104(1):76-8. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.104.1.013.
16. Colquhoun HL, Levac D, O’Brien KK, Straus S, Tricco AC, Perrier L, Kastner M, Moher D. Scoping reviews: time for clarity in definition, methods, and reporting. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014 Dec; 67(12):1291-4.
17. Grant MJ, Booth A. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Inf Libr J. 2009 Jun; 26(2):91-108.
18. Pham MT, Raji A, Greig JD, Sargeant JM, Papadopoulos A, McEwen SA. A scoping review of scoping reviews: advancing the approach and enhancing the consistency. Res Synth Methods. 2014 Dec; 5(4):371-85.
19. Rumrill PD, Fitzgerald SM, Merchant WR. Using scoping literature reviews as a means of understanding and interpreting existing literature. Work. 2010; 35(3):399-404.
20. Arksey H, O’Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005; 8(1):19-32.
21. McColl MA, Shortt S, Godwin M, Smith K, Rowe K, O’Brien P, Donnelly C. Models for integrating rehabilitation and primary care: a scoping study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2009 Sep; 90(9):1523-31.
22. Advancing the field of scoping study methodology [meeting final report]. Toronto, ON, Canada; 2015.
23. Joanna Briggs Institute. The Joanna Briggs Institute reviewers’ manual 2015: methodology for JBI scoping reviews [Internet]. Adelaide, Australia: University of Adelaide; 2015 [cited 15 Apr 2016].,http://joannabriggs.org/assets/docs/sumari/Reviewers-Manual_Methodologyfor-JBI-Scoping-Reviews_2015_v2.pdf.
24. Peters MD, Godfrey CM, Khalil H, McInerney P, Parker D, Soares CB. Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2015 Sep; 13(3):141-6.
25. Federer L. The librarian as research informationist: a case study. J Med Libr Assoc. 2013 Oct; 101(4):298-302. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.101.4.011.
26. Barbic S, Boruff J. An introduction to systematic reviews and meta-analysis [slides]. Montreal, QC, Canada: McGill University; 2012.
27. Booth A, Papaioannou D, Sutton A. Systematic approaches to a successful literature review. 1st ed. London, UK: SAGE Publications; 2012. 279 p.
28. Cushing/Whitney Medical Library. Yale MeSH analyzer [Internet]. New Haven, CT: Yale University; 2015 [cited 10 Mar 2016].,http://mesh.med.yale.edu.
29. Thomas A, Menon A, Boruff J, Rodriguez A, Ahmed S. Applications of social constructivist learning theories in knowledge translation for healthcare professionals: a scoping review. Implement Sci. 2014 May; 9:54.
30. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Defining the role of authors and contributors [Internet]. Philadelphia, PA: The Committee; 2016 [cited 16 Apr 2016].,http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/rolesand-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-andcontributors.html.
31. Miake-Lye IM, Hempel S, Shanman R, Shekelle PG. What is an evidence map? a systematic review of published evidence maps and their definitions, methods, and products. Syst Rev. 2016 Feb; 5(1):28.
32. Kirtley S. Increasing value and reducing waste in biomedical research: librarians are listening and are part of the answer. Lancet. 2016 Apr 16; 387(10028):1601.
33. Kirtley S. Can librarians contribute to increasing value and reducing waste in medical research? [Internet]. Oxford, UK: EQUATOR Network; 28 Feb 2014 [cited 30 Mar 2016].,http://www.equator-network.org/2014/02/28/canlibrarians-contribute-to-increasing-value-and-reducingwaste-in-medical-research/.
34. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering & Medicine: Health and Medicine Division. Standards for systematic reviews [Internet]. Washington, DC: The Academies; 23 Mar 2011 [cited 23 Feb 2016].,http://www.nationalacademies.org/hmd/Reports/2011/Finding-What-Works-in-Health-Care-Standards-for-Systematic-Reviews/Standards.aspx?page¼2.
35. Sampson M. Welcoming systematic reviews to the Journal of the Medical Library Association [editorial]. J Med Libr Assoc. 2014 Jul; 102(3):143-5. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.102.3.001.