Medical librarians' knowledge and practices in locating clinical trials for systematic reviews.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Objective
In regard to locating clinical trials for a systematic review, limited information is available about how librarians locate clinical trials in biomedical databases, including (1) how much information researchers provide librarians to assist with the development of a comprehensive search strategy, (2) which tools librarians turn to for information about study design methodology, and (3) librarians' confidence levels in their knowledge of study design methodology. A survey was developed to explore these aspects of how a medical librarian locates clinical trials when facilitating systematic reviews for researchers.Methods
In this cross-sectional study, a 21-question survey was sent to medical librarians via several email listservs during April 2020. Respondents were limited to librarians who make the decisions on search terms for systematic reviews.Results
Responses (n=120) indicated that librarians were often asked to search for various types of clinical trials. However, there was not a consistent method for creating search strategies that locate diverse types of clinical trials. Multiple methods were used for search strategy development, with hedges being the most popular method. In general, these librarians considered themselves to be confident in locating trials. Different resources were used to inform study types, including textbooks, articles, library guides and websites.Discussion
Medical librarians indicated that while they felt confident in their searching skills, they did not have a definitive source of information about the various types of clinical trials, and their responses demonstrated a clear need and desire for more information on study design methodology.
SUBMITTER: Westrick JC
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8270353 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectivesThe objectives of this study were to benchmark roles that veterinary librarians at universities and colleges play in systematic reviews (SRs) and scoping reviews that are conducted by faculty and students at their institutions, to benchmark the level of training that veterinary librarians have in conducting SRs, to identify barriers to their participation in SRs, and to identify other types of literature reviews that veterinary librarians participate in.MethodsSixty veterinary librarians in universities and colleges in Canada, the United States, England, Scotland, Ireland, Australia, and New Zealand were surveyed online about their roles and training in conducting SRs, barriers to participation in SRs, and participation in other types of literature reviews.ResultsVeterinary librarians' highest participation was at an advising level in traditional librarian roles as question formulator, database selector, search strategy developer, and reference manager. Most respondents reported pretty good to extensive training in traditional roles and no or some training in less traditional roles. Sixty percent of respondents received few or no requests to participate in SRs, and only half of respondents had participated in SRs as a review team member. Sixty percent of respondents stated that their libraries had no policies regarding librarian roles and participation in SRs.ConclusionsThe surveyed veterinary librarians participated in SRs to a lesser degree than human health sciences librarians, experienced low demand from veterinary faculty and students to participate in SRs, and participated as review team members at significantly lower rates than human health sciences librarians. The main barriers to participation in SRs were lack of library policies, insufficient training, and lack of time.
| S-EPMC6774563 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Objective:What roles do librarians and information professionals play in conducting systematic reviews? Librarians are increasingly called upon to be involved in systematic reviews, but no study has considered all the roles librarians can perform. This inventory of existing and emerging roles aids in defining librarians' systematic reviews services. Methods:For this scoping review, the authors conducted controlled vocabulary and text-word searches in the PubMed; Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts; and CINAHL databases. We separately searched for articles published in the Journal of the European Association for Health Information and Libraries, Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, the Journal of the Canadian Heath Libraries Association, and Hypothesis. We also text-word searched Medical Library Association annual meeting poster and paper abstracts. Results:We identified 18 different roles filled by librarians and other information professionals in conducting systematic reviews from 310 different articles, book chapters, and presented papers and posters. Some roles were well known such as searching, source selection, and teaching. Other less documented roles included planning, question formulation, and peer review. We summarize these different roles and provide an accompanying bibliography of references for in-depth descriptions of these roles. Conclusion:Librarians play central roles in systematic review teams, including roles that go beyond searching. This scoping review should encourage librarians who are fulfilling roles that are not captured here to document their roles in journal articles and poster and paper presentations.
| S-EPMC5764593 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveWhile many librarians have been asked to participate in systematic reviews with researchers, often these researchers are not familiar with the systematic review process or the appropriate role for librarians. The purpose of this study was to identify the challenges and barriers that librarians face when collaborating on systematic reviews. To take a wider view of the whole process of collaborating on systematic reviews, the authors deliberately focused on interpersonal and methodological issues other than searching itself.MethodsTo characterize the biggest challenges that librarians face while collaborating on systematic review projects, we used a web-based survey. The thirteen-item survey included seventeen challenges grouped into two categories: methodological and interpersonal. Participants were required to indicate the frequency and difficulty of the challenges listed. Open-ended questions allowed survey participants to describe challenges not listed in the survey and to describe strategies used to overcome challenges.ResultsOf the 17 challenges listed in the survey, 8 were reported as common by over 40% of respondents. These included methodological issues around having too broad or narrow research questions, lacking eligibility criteria, having unclear research questions, and not following established methods. The remaining challenges were interpersonal, including issues around student-led projects and the size of the research team. Of the top 8 most frequent challenges, 5 were also ranked as most difficult to handle. Open-ended responses underscored many of the challenges included in the survey and revealed several additional challenges.ConclusionsThese results suggest that the most frequent and challenging issues relate to development of the research question and general communication with team members. Clear protocols for collaboration on systematic reviews, as well as a culture of mentorship, can help librarians prevent and address these challenges.
| S-EPMC5624428 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This study describes the current state of Canadian university health sciences librarians' knowledge about, training needs for, and barriers to participating in systematic reviews (SRs). A convenience sample of Canadian librarians was surveyed. Over half of the librarians who had participated in SRs acknowledged participating in a traditional librarian role (e.g., search strategy developer); less than half indicated participating in any one nontraditional librarian role (e.g., data extractor). Lack of time and insufficient training were the most frequently reported barriers to participating in SRs. The findings provide a benchmark for tracking changes in Canadian university health sciences librarians' participation in SRs.
| S-EPMC4404858 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundDengue has emerged as a major public health problem in Bhutan, with increasing incidence and widening geographic spread over recent years. This study aimed to investigate the knowledge and clinical management of dengue among medical practitioners in Bhutan.MethodsWe administered a survey questionnaire to all practitioners currently registered under the Bhutan Medical and Health Council. The questionnaire contained items on four domains including transmission, clinical course and presentation, diagnosis and management, and surveillance and prevention of dengue. Participants were able to respond using an online Qualtrics survey, with the invitation and link distributed via email.ResultsA total of 97 respondents were included in the study (response rate: 12.7%), of which 61.86% were Health Assistants/Clinical Officers (HAs/COs) and 38.14% were medical doctors. The afternoon feeding behaviour of Aedes mosquito was correctly identified by only 24.7% of the respondents, and ~66.0% of them failed to identify lethargy as a warning sign for severe dengue. Knowledge on diagnosis using NS1 antigen and the clinical significance of elevated haematocrit for initial fluid replacement was strikingly low at 47.4% and 27.8% respectively. Despite dengue being a nationally notifiable disease, ~60% of respondents were not knowledgeable on the timing and type of cases to be reported. Respondent's median score was higher for the surveillance and reporting domain, followed by their knowledge on transmission of dengue. Statistically significant factors associated with higher knowledge included respondents being a medical doctor, working in a hospital and experience of having diagnosed dengue.ConclusionThe study revealed major gaps on knowledge and clinical management practices related to dengue in Bhutan. Physicians and health workers working in Basic Health Units need training and regular supervision to improve their knowledge on the care of dengue patients.
| S-EPMC8284660 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDeveloping a comprehensive, reproducible literature search is the basis for a high-quality systematic review (SR). Librarians and information professionals, as expert searchers, can improve the quality of systematic review searches, methodology, and reporting. Likewise, journal editors and authors often seek to improve the quality of published SRs and other evidence syntheses through peer review. Health sciences librarians contribute to systematic review production but little is known about their involvement in peer reviewing SR manuscripts.MethodsThis survey aimed to assess how frequently librarians are asked to peer review systematic review manuscripts and to determine characteristics associated with those invited to review. The survey was distributed to a purposive sample through three health sciences information professional listservs.ResultsThere were 291 complete survey responses. Results indicated that 22% (n = 63) of respondents had been asked by journal editors to peer review systematic review or meta-analysis manuscripts. Of the 78% (n = 228) of respondents who had not already been asked, 54% (n = 122) would peer review, and 41% (n = 93) might peer review. Only 4% (n = 9) would not review a manuscript. Respondents had peer reviewed manuscripts for 38 unique journals and believed they were asked because of their professional expertise. Of respondents who had declined to peer review (32%, n = 20), the most common explanation was "not enough time" (60%, n = 12) followed by "lack of expertise" (50%, n = 10).The vast majority of respondents (95%, n = 40) had "rejected or recommended a revision of a manuscript| after peer review. They based their decision on the "search methodology" (57%, n = 36), "search write-up" (46%, n = 29), or "entire article" (54%, n = 34). Those who selected "other" (37%, n = 23) listed a variety of reasons for rejection, including problems or errors in the PRISMA flow diagram; tables of included, excluded, and ongoing studies; data extraction; reporting; and pooling methods.ConclusionsDespite being experts in conducting literature searches and supporting SR teams through the review process, few librarians have been asked to review SR manuscripts, or even just search strategies; yet many are willing to provide this service. Editors should involve experienced librarians with peer review and we suggest some strategies to consider.
| S-EPMC6882225 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThis prospective, longitudinal study explored the impact of a continuing education class on librarians' knowledge levels about and professional involvement with systematic reviews. Barriers to systematic review participation and the presence of formal systematic review services in libraries were also measured.MethodsParticipants completed web-based surveys at three points in time: pre-class, post-class, and six-months' follow-up. Descriptive statistics were calculated for demographics and survey questions. Linear mixed effects models assessed knowledge score changes over time.ResultsOf 160 class attendees, 140 (88%) completed the pre-class survey. Of those 140, 123 (88%) completed the post-class survey, and 103 (74%) completed the follow-up survey. There was a significant increase (p<0.00001) from pre-class to post-class in knowledge test scores, and this increase was maintained at follow-up. At post-class, 69% or more of participants intended to promote peer review of searches, seek peer review of their searches, search for grey literature, read or follow published guidelines on conduct and documentation of systematic reviews, and ask for authorship on a systematic review. Among librarians who completed a systematic review between post-class and follow-up, 73% consulted published guidelines, 52% searched grey literature, 48% sought peer review, 57% asked for authorship, and 70% received authorship.ConclusionsAttendance at this continuing education class was associated with positive changes in knowledge about systematic reviews and in librarians' systematic review-related professional practices. This suggests that in-depth professional development classes can help librarians develop skills that are needed to meet library patrons' changing service needs.
| S-EPMC6919982 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveA critical element in conducting a systematic review is the identification of studies. To date, very little empirical evidence has been reported on whether the presence of a librarian or information professional can contribute to the quality of the final product. The goal of this study was to compare the reporting rigor of the literature searching component of systematic reviews with and without the help of a librarian.MethodSystematic reviews published from 2002 to 2011 in the twenty highest impact factor pediatrics journals were collected from MEDLINE. Corresponding authors were contacted via an email survey to determine if a librarian was involved, the role that the librarian played, and functions that the librarian performed. The reviews were scored independently by two reviewers using a fifteen-item checklist.ResultsThere were 186 reviews that met the inclusion criteria, and 44% of the authors indicated the involvement of a librarian in conducting the systematic review. With the presence of a librarian as coauthor or team member, the mean checklist score was 8.40, compared to 6.61 (p<0.001) for reviews without a librarian.ConclusionsFindings indicate that having a librarian as a coauthor or team member correlates with a higher score in the literature searching component of systematic reviews.
| S-EPMC5079487 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceSystematic reviews can help to justify a new randomized clinical trial (RCT), inform its design, and interpret its results in the context of prior evidence.ObjectiveTo assess trends and factors associated with citing (a marker of the use of) prior systematic reviews in RCT reports.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study investigated 737 Cochrane reviews assessing health interventions to identify 4003 eligible RCTs, defined as those included in an updated version but not in the first version of a Cochrane review and published 2 years after the first version of the Cochrane review was published.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was the citation of prior systematic reviews, Cochrane or others, as determined by screening references of eligible RCTs. Factors that may be associated with the citation of prior systematic reviews were also examined.ResultsAmong 4003 eligible RCTs, 1241 studies (31.0%) cited Cochrane reviews, 1698 studies (42.4%) cited prior non-Cochrane reviews, and 2265 studies (56.6%) cited either type of systematic review or both; 1738 RCTs (43.4%) cited no systematic reviews. The percentage of RCTs citing prior Cochrane reviews, non-Cochrane reviews, and either or both types of review increased from 28 studies (15.3%), 46 studies (25.1%), and 65 studies (35.5%) of 183 RCTs before 2008 to 42 studies (40.8%), 65 studies (64.1%), and 73 studies (71.8%) of 102 RCTs since 2020, respectively; the annual increases were 1.9% (95% CI, 1.4%-2.3%), 3.3% (95% CI, 2.9%-3.7%), and 3.0% (95% CI, 2.5%-3.5%), respectively. The proportion of RCTs citating prior systematic reviews varied considerably across clinical specialties, ranging from 28 of 106 RCTs (26.4%) in ophthalmology to 386 of 553 RCTs (69.8%) in psychiatry (P < .001). RCTs with 100 participants or more (risk ratio [RR], 1.16; 95% CI, 1.03-1.30), nonindustry funding (RR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.27-1.61), and authors from high-income countries (RR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.03-1.17) were more likely to cite systematic reviews than those with fewer than 100 participants, industry funding, and authors from low- and middle-income countries, respectively. A journal requirement to cite systematic reviews was not associated with the likelihood of citing a systematic review.Conclusions and relevanceThis study found that the citation of prior systematic reviews in RCT reports improved over time, but approximately 40% of RCTs failed to do so. These findings suggest that reference to prior evidence for initiating, designing, and reporting RCTs should be further emphasized to assure clinical relevance, improve methodological quality, and facilitate interpretation of new results.
| S-EPMC10037150 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The researchers used the flipped classroom model to develop and conduct a systematic review course for librarians.The research took place at an academic health sciences library.A team of informationists developed and conducted a pilot course. Assessment informed changes to both course components; a second course addressed gaps in the pilot.Both the pilot and subsequent course received positive reviews. Changes based on assessment data will inform future iterations.The flipped classroom model can be successful in developing and implementing a course that is well rated by students.
| S-EPMC4404857 | biostudies-other