Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31258447›Full record

ArticleJournal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA2019

Building capacity for librarian support and addressing collaboration challenges by formalizing library systematic review services.

Sandra McKeown, Amanda Ross-White

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
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

2 authors.

Sandra McKeownHealth Sciences Librarian, Bracken Health Sciences Library, Queen's University, Kingston, ON, K7L 3N6, Canada, sandra.mckeown@queensu.ca.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2728-6702
Amanda Ross-WhiteHealth Sciences Librarian, Bracken Health Sciences Library, Queen's University, Kingston, ON, K7L 3N6, Canada, amanda.ross-white@queensu.ca.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4737-0968

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMany health sciences librarians are noticing an increase in demand for systematic review support. Developing a strategic approach to supporting systematic review activities can address commonly reported barriers and challenges including time factors, methodological issues, and supporting student-led projects. CASE PRESENTATION: This case report describes how a health sciences library at a mid-sized university developed and implemented a structured and defined systematic review service in order to build capacity for increased librarian support and to maximize librarians' time and expertise. The process also revealed underlying collaboration challenges related to student-led systematic reviews and research quality concerns that needed to be addressed. The steps for developing a formal service included defining the librarian's role and a library service model, building librarian expertise, developing documentation to guide librarians and patrons, piloting and revising the service model, marketing and promoting the service, and evaluating service usage.

conclusionsThe two-tiered service model developed for advisory consultation and collaboration provides a framework for supporting systematic review activities that other libraries can adapt to meet their own needs. Librarian autonomy in deciding whether to collaborate on reviews based on defined and explicit considerations was crucial for maximizing librarians' time and expertise and for promoting higher quality research. Monitoring service usage will be imperative for managing existing and future librarian workload. These data and tracking of research outputs from librarian collaborations may also be used to advocate for new librarian positions.

Indexed as

Libraries, MedicalLibrary ServicesSystematic Reviews as TopicAdultCapacity BuildingFemaleHumansIntersectoral CollaborationLibrariansMaleMiddle AgedProfessional Role

Identifiers

PMID31258447
PMCPMC6579587

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.