Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29632443›Full record

ArticleJournal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA2018

Environmental scan and evaluation of best practices for online systematic review resources.

Robin M N Parker, Leah M Boulos, Sarah Visintini, Krista Ritchie, Jill Hayden

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 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Robin M N ParkerEvidence Synthesis and Information Services Librarian, W.K. Kellogg Health Sciences Library, and Department of Community Health and Epidemiology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-8966-2785
Leah M BoulosEvidence Synthesis Coordinator, Maritime SPOR SUPPORT Unit, Halifax, NS, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-9849-383X
Sarah VisintiniEvidence Synthesis Coordinator, Maritime SPOR SUPPORT Unit, Halifax, NS, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-6966-1753
Krista RitchieAssistant Professor, Faculty of Education, Mount Saint Vincent University, Halifax, NS, Canada.
Jill HaydenAssociate Professor, Department of Community Health and Epidemiology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveOnline training for systematic review methodology is an attractive option due to flexibility and limited availability of in-person instruction. Librarians often direct new reviewers to these online resources, so they should be knowledgeable about the variety of available resources. The objective for this project was to conduct an environmental scan of online systematic review training resources and evaluate those identified resources.

methodsThe authors systematically searched for electronic learning resources pertaining to systematic review methods. After screening for inclusion, we collected data about characteristics of training resources and assigned scores in the domains of (1) content, (2) design, (3) interactivity, and (4) usability by applying a previously published evaluation rubric for online instruction modules. We described the characteristics and scores for each training resource and compared performance across the domains.

resultsTwenty training resources were evaluated. Average overall score of online instructional resources was 61%. Online courses (n=7) averaged 73%, web modules (n=5) 64%, and videos (n=8) 48%. The top 5 highest scoring resources were in course or web module format, featured high interactivity, and required a longer (>5hrs) time commitment from users.

conclusionThis study revealed that resources include appropriate content but are less likely to adhere to principles of online training design and interactivity. Awareness of these resources will allow librarians to make informed recommendations for training based on patrons' needs. Future online systematic review training resources should use established best practices for e-learning to provide high-quality resources, regardless of format or user time commitment.

Indexed as

Information Storage and RetrievalInternetResearchSystematic Reviews as Topic

Identifiers

PMID29632443
PMCPMC5886503

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.