Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29632442›Full record

ArticleJournal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA2018

It takes longer than you think: librarian time spent on systematic review tasks.

Krystal Bullers, Allison M Howard, Ardis Hanson, William D Kearns, John J Orriola, Randall L Polo, Kristen A Sakmar

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

27 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Development and Evaluation of a Generative AI Chatbot for Database Searching in Systematic Review.Journal of nursing scholarship : an official publication of Sigma Theta Tau International Honor Society of Nursing · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. How do search systems impact systematic searching? A qualitative study.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2023
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Krystal BullersEmerging Technologies and Pharmacy Liaison Librarian, Hinks and Elaine Shimberg Health Sciences Library, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL.ORCID 0000-0002-2199-2286
Allison M HowardResearch and Education Librarian, Hinks and Elaine Shimberg Health Sciences Library, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL.ORCID 0000-0003-1542-3893
Ardis HansonAssistant Director, Research and Education, Hinks and Elaine Shimberg Health Sciences Library, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL.ORCID 0000-0003-4253-0424
William D KearnsResearch Associate Professor, Department of Rehabilitation and Mental Health Counseling, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL.ORCID 0000-0002-0241-814X
John J OrriolaResearch and Education Librarian, Hinks and Elaine Shimberg Health Sciences Library, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL.ORCID 0000-0002-6524-6250
Randall L PoloResearch and Education Librarian, Hinks and Elaine Shimberg Health Sciences Library, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL.ORCID 0000-0003-4341-242X
Kristen A SakmarAssistant Librarian, Research and Education, Hinks and Elaine Shimberg Health Sciences Library, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL.ORCID 0000-0003-2399-1161

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe authors examined the time that medical librarians spent on specific tasks for systematic reviews (SRs): interview process, search strategy development, search strategy translation, documentation, deliverables, search methodology writing, and instruction. We also investigated relationships among the time spent on SR tasks, years of experience, and number of completed SRs to gain a better understanding of the time spent on SR tasks from time, staffing, and project management perspectives.

methodsA confidential survey and study description were sent to medical library directors who were members of the Association of Academic Health Sciences Libraries as well as librarians serving members of the Association of American Medical Colleges or American Osteopathic Association.

resultsOf the 185 participants, 143 (77%) had worked on an SR within the last 5 years. The number of SRs conducted by participants during their careers ranged from 1 to 500, with a median of 5. The major component of time spent was on search strategy development and translation. Average aggregated time for standard tasks was 26.9 hours, with a median of 18.5 hours. Task time was unrelated to the number of SRs but was positively correlated with years of SR experience.

conclusionThe time required to conduct the librarian's discrete tasks in an SR varies substantially, and there are no standard time frames. Librarians with more SR experience spent more time on instruction and interviews; time spent on all other tasks varied widely. Librarians also can expect to spend a significant amount of their time on search strategy development, translation, and writing.

Indexed as

Information Storage and RetrievalLibrariansWorkloadHumansSurveys and QuestionnairesSystematic Reviews as TopicTime Factors

Identifiers

PMID29632442
PMCPMC5886502

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.