Evaluation of a new method for librarian-mediated literature searches for systematic reviews

Research Synthesis Methods

Volumn 9, Issue 4, 2018, Pages 510-520

  Bramer, Wichor M ^a   Rethlefsen, Melissa L ^b   Mast, Frans ^a   Kleijnen, Jos ^c,d  

^a ERASMUS MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^b UNIVERSITY OF UTAH SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^c MAASTRICHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^d KLEIJNEN SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS LTD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

bibliographic databases; information storage and retrieval; quality improvement; review literature as topic

Indexed keywords

BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATABASE; BIBLIOMETRICS; HUMAN; INFORMATION RETRIEVAL; LIBRARY; MEDICAL INFORMATICS; MEDLINE; NETHERLANDS; PROCEDURES; SEARCH ENGINE; SOFTWARE; STANDARDS; UNIVERSITY; UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL;

ACADEMIC MEDICAL CENTERS; BIBLIOMETRICS; DATABASES, BIBLIOGRAPHIC; HUMANS; INFORMATION STORAGE AND RETRIEVAL; LIBRARIES, MEDICAL; MEDICAL INFORMATICS; NETHERLANDS; PUBMED; SEARCH ENGINE; SOFTWARE; SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS AS TOPIC; UNIVERSITIES;

EID: 85036538242     PISSN: None     EISSN: 17592887     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/jrsm.1279     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (21)

1. Institute of Medicine, Committee on Standards for Systematic Reviews of Comparative Effectiveness Research. Finding What Works in Health Care: Standards for Systematic Reviews. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2011.
2. Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. West Sussex, UK: Wiley Online Library; 2008, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470712184.
3. Chandler J, Churchill R, Higgins J, Lasserson T, Tovey D. Methodological standards for the conduct of new Cochrane Intervention Reviews. 2013; Version 2.3:http://editorial-unit.cochrane.org/sites/editorial-unit.cochrane.org/files/uploads/MECIR_conduct_standards%202.3%2002122013_0.pdf. Accessed 21 December, 2015.
4. Saleh AA, Ratajeski MA, Bertolet M. Grey literature searching for health sciences systematic reviews: a prospective study of time spent and resources utilized. Evid Based Libr Inf Pract. 2014;9(3):28-50. https://doi.org/10.18438/B8DW3K
5. Erwin PJ. By the clock: how much time does an expert search take? MLA news. 2004;370:1,12
6. MECIR. Methodological standards for the conduct of Cochrane intervention reviews. 2013; http://editorial-unit.cochrane.org/sites/editorial-unit.cochrane.org/files/uploads/MECIR_conduct_standards%202.3%2002122013.pdf. Accessed May, 7, 2015.
7. Rethlefsen ML, Farrell AM, Osterhaus Trzasko LC, Brigham TJ. Librarian co-authors correlated with higher quality reported search strategies in general internal medicine systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2015;68(6):617-626. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.11.025
8. Bramer WM, de Jonge GB, Rethlefsen ML, Mast F, Kleijnen J. An efficient approach to systematic literature searching. Accepted for publication in J Med Libr Assoc 2018.
9. Koffel JB. Use of recommended search strategies in systematic reviews and the impact of librarian involvement: a cross-sectional survey of recent authors. PLoS One. 2015;10(5):e0125931:e0125931. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0125931
10. Allen IE, Olkin I. Estimating time to conduct a meta-analysis from number of citations retrieved. JAMA. 1999;282(7):634-635. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.282.7.634
11. Gann LB, Pratt GF. Using library search service metrics to demonstrate library value and manage workload. J Med Libr Assoc. 2013;101(3):227-229. https://doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.101.3.015
12. Hausner E, Guddat C, Hermanns T, Lampert U, Waffenschmidt S. Prospective comparison of search strategies for systematic reviews: an objective approach yielded higher sensitivity than a conceptual one. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;77:118-124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.05.002
13. Nauche B, Landry T. Implanter un service de soutien aux revues systématiques en milieu hospitalier - Le chemin parcouru par les bibliothécaires du CUSM. Congrès annuel de l'ABSC/CHLA; June 18, 2014; Montréal, Canada.
14. Lyon JA, Garcia-Milian R, Norton HF, Tennant MR. The use of research electronic data capture (REDCap) software to create a database of librarian-mediated literature searches. Med Ref Serv Q. 2014;33(3):241-252. https://doi.org/10.1080/02763869.2014.925379
15. SPSS Statistics [computer program]. Version 211989, 2012.
16. Borah R, Brown AW, Capers PL, Kaiser KA. Analysis of the time and workers needed to conduct systematic reviews of medical interventions using data from the PROSPERO registry. BMJ Open. 2017;7(2):e012545. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012545
17. Bullers K. Unpublished data (personal communication). 2017.
18. Sampson M, Tetzlaff J, Urquhart C. Precision of healthcare systematic review searches in a cross-sectional sample. Research Synthesis Methods. 2011;2(2):119-125. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.42
19. Hausner E, Guddat C, Hermanns T, Lampert U, Waffenschmidt S. Development of search strategies for systematic reviews: validation showed the noninferiority of the objective approach. J Clin Epidemiol. 2015;68(2):191-199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.09.016
20. Pieterman K, Plaisier A, Govaert P, Leemans A, Lequin MH, Dudink J. Data quality in diffusion tensor imaging studies of the preterm brain: a systematic review. Pediatr Radiol. 2015;45(9):1372-1381. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00247-015-3307-y
21. Bramer WM. Expert searching—searching for systematic reviews: set numbers or one liners?—column. MLA news. 2014;54(4):15