ArticleJournal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA2015
Benchmarking participation of Canadian university health sciences librarians in systematic reviews.
Article in Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 31 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evidence-based biomedical research in Sub-Saharan Africa: how library and information science professionals contribute to systematic reviews and meta-analyses.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2022Article
- Systematic review support received and needed by researchers: a survey of libraries supporting Ontario medical schools.The journal of the Canadian Health Libraries Association · 2021Article
- Assessing the roles and challenges of librarians in dental systematic and scoping reviews.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2021Article
- "What's happening over there?": a study of the current state of services, challenges, and prospects in Nigerian medical libraries.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2020Article
- Benchmarking veterinary librarians' participation in systematic reviews and scoping reviews.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2019Article
- Building capacity for librarian support and addressing collaboration challenges by formalizing library systematic review services.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2019Article
- Emerging roles of health information professionals for library and information science curriculum development: a scoping review.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2018Article
- Learning while doing: program evaluation of the Medical Library Association Systematic Review Project.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2018Article
- Collaboration challenges in systematic reviews: a survey of health sciences librarians.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2017Article
- Integrating research into practice.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.