Results of a study analysing the web sites of 157 health sciences library websites for information about services related to systematic review support.

1. TEMPLATE DESIGN © 2008
www.PosterPresentations.com
Of the 79 AAHSL libraries with systematic review services:
● 33 accept requests via online search forms
● 6 delineate options available by service level (e.g., basic vs. extensive)
● 21 mention other review types:
○ 16 mention meta-analyses
○ 5 mention scoping reviews
● 6 mention specific tasks the librarian will not perform:
○ 3 exclude full-text retrieval
○ 2 exclude hand searching of the literature
○ 1 excludes searching grey literature
● 4 mention the volume of requests or staffing issues
● 8 provide 1 or 2 contacts for the SRS (possibly to triage requests)
Systematic Review Services on Health Sciences Library Web Sites
PF Anderson, MILS, <pfa@umich.edu>; Emily Ginier, MLIS; Nandita S. Mani, PhD
Taubman Health Sciences Library, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
OBJECTIVE
In order to inform development of a marketing plan for our systematic review
services, we undertook a complete review of how systematic review services are
discussed and displayed on the web sites for health sciences libraries.
METHODS
KEY DATA
Support for Do-It-Yourself Systematic Reviews
Additional SRS Features
Some libraries elected to provide consultation on the systematic review process in
lieu of providing the search service, or as an alternative to the search service. We
identified 38 libraries in this category. Of those 38, 22 offered a choice of two options:
the librarian could complete the search for the team, or the librarian could consult
with the team, offering advice as they developed their own search strategy. Only 16
libraries stated a preference to teach the systematic review teams how to do their
own searches, and that the librarians would not perform systematic review searches.
The research team plans on administering a survey to AAHSL libraries to have a
better understanding regarding the role systematic review services should play in the
health science environment, the importance of co-authorship, and the optimal
mechanism for marketing SRS. In addition, the research team plans on publishing
our results and using this information to help formulate a plan for further developing
our systematic review offerings within the University of Michigan Taubman Health
Sciences Library.
Working from a list of United States health sciences libraries provided by the
Association of Academic Health Sciences Libraries (AAHSL), the web sites for all
listed libraries were reviewed for the presence or absence of an official systematic
review service (SRS). Verification was done by two reviewers and three methods:
homepage review; services page review; and text word search within the site
(searching for terms related to SRS and, if that failed, terms related to “evidence-
based”). When a question arose as to whether or not a library provided a SRS, the
reviewers either achieved consensus or referred the final decision to a third party. In
addition to review for SRS, the web sites were also reviewed for alternative novel
services. For all libraries for which the web site provided an identifiable SRS, patterns
were identified, and best practices were gathered.
Types of Systematic Review Service
Of the 79 libraries with systematic review services mentioned on their website, 55
promote their systematic review search service, 14 provide LibGuides that do not
explicitly mention partnering with librarians from their institution, 6 only have
systematic review classes listed on their website, and 4 only advertised their SRS in
a static newsletter or bulletin.
Related Services
We were unable to confirm the presence or absence of SRS for 78 of the 157
libraries. Of those 78, 13 provide high-level search services that are not explicitly
systematic review search services, including comprehensive, exhaustive, and
evidence-based search services. Of the 78, 43 provide tertiary evidence-based
practice information and services: 10 provide instruction through curriculum
integration and workshops, 18 provide LibGuides on the process of evidence-based
practice and evidence-based resources, and 15 only provide a list of evidence-based
resources.
Of the 157 library web sites assessed, 16 mentioned a systematic review search or
support service on the homepage and 63 on a secondary or internal page. We were
unable to confirm the presence or absence of a SRS for 79 of the libraries.
Fee or Free
Of the 79 libraries identified as providing a systematic review search service, 15
provided searches at no charge, 7 required a fee, and 2 required a fee which was
waived if librarian co-authorship was offered. Fees ranged from $10 to $100/hour for
primary affiliated patrons, and from $30 to $100/hour plus base fees for non-affiliates.
The majority of libraries (55/79) did not discuss fees on their website, but instead
suggested that interested patrons request more information via provided contact
information.
FEES CHARGED
Affiliates:
$10-$100
Non-affiliates:
$30-$100
Co-authorship
One-third (29/79) of the libraries which were identified as providing a SRS requested
co-authorship for the librarians providing that service. The exemplars selected
illustrate the range of language used to discuss co-authorship.
“The librarian, as full partner and co-author, is committed to collaborating
and supporting the following Systematic Review tasks…”
Yale University Cushing/Whitney Medical Library
“Investigators should offer their librarian authorship. It is up to the librarian
whether or not to accept the offer.”
Washington University Bernard Becker Medical Library
“Librarians collaborating on systematic reviews commonly satisfy the criteria
for authorship set forth by ICMJE. Co-authorship is expected when a
librarian serves as collaborator rather than a consultant. If your project is in
support of a grant proposal, plan to discuss the appropriate allocation of
effort and include the librarian as a co-investigator or consultant.”
Northwestern University Galter Health Sciences Library
“Librarians who write the search methodology section of the review should
be included as a co-author. Librarians who collaborate on search strategy
formation and/or citation management should be acknowledged in the final
publication.”
University of Minnesota Health Sciences Libraries Bio-Medical Library
“Liaison Librarians can partner with you and advise on how to start a
systematic review. They will be part of the author team to design and
manage complex, extensive literature searches in multiple databases.”
Texas Medical Center Library
Of the 29 libraries that request co-authorship for their role on the systematic review
team, 8 have a memorandum of understanding or similar language in their search
form requiring the requester to agree to co-authorship.
“Authorship rights will be extended to the librarian based upon criteria
outlined in the Memorandum of Understanding in the ‘Literature Review
Work Plan’.”
University of Ottawa Health Sciences Library
“The tables below outline the services offered (Table 1) and services not
offered (Table 2) by McGoogan's reference librarians. You will note that
some services are only available to those who promise co-authorship to the
participating librarian. Within the field of librarianship, some aspects of
systematic searching are viewed as professional, research activities worthy
of co-authorship.”
University of Nebraska McGoogan Library of Medicine
Systematic Review Request Form: “By submitting this request, you
understand the MSK Librarian assigned to this systematic review will be
credited as a co-author on the final publication.”
Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center Library
Memorandum of Understanding: “For our services, we ask the following:
● Authorship, with appropriate citation as a co-author
● Peer review--we will have other librarians peer review the research
sections to be sure that the search strategy is sound and conforms to
accepted standards
● The authors/research team will give notice before the final search
strategies are sent to the publisher. The entire research team and the
librarian must agree that the search is in its final form and ready for
publisher submission.
East Carolina University Laupus Library
NEXT STEPS