- Framework of problems / Objective
- Literature searches not validated by information specialist
- The case of the disappearing librarians: analyzing documentation of librarians' contributions to systematic reviews
| Ref ID | 849 |
| First Author | A. Brunskill |
| Journal | JOURNAL OF THE MEDICAL LIBRARY ASSOCIATION |
| Year Of Publishing | 2022 |
| URL | https://jmla.pitt.edu/ojs/jmla/article/view/1505 |
| Keywords |
• Team • Author • Protocols • Expertise • Searching • Non-Cochrane reviews |
| Problem(s) |
• Literature searches not validated by information specialist |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 206 |
| Summary of Findings | From 209 systematic reviews and meta-analyses whose registered protocols mentioned librarian involvement registered in PROSPERO between 2017 and 2018. Of the 209 included reviews 28% had a librarian co-author, 41% named a librarian in the acknowledgements section, and 78% mentioned the contribution of a librarian within the body of the review. However, mentions of a librarian within the included review were often generic (“a librarian”) and in 31% of all reviews analysed no librarian was specified by name. In 9% of the reviews, there was no reference to a librarian found at all. |
| Did the article find that the problem(s) led to qualitative changes in interpretation of the results? | N/A |
| Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study? | No |