ArticleJournal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA2019
Building capacity for librarian support and addressing collaboration challenges by formalizing library systematic review services.
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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Structure and elements of library evidence synthesis services: a content analysis of publicly available information.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2026Article
- Taking it a step farther: acknowledging librarians' systematic review work in the promotion or tenure process.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2026Article
- Evaluation of an online systematic review escape room for early career clinicians and doctoral students.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2025Article
- Effect of librarian collaboration on otolaryngology systematic review and meta-analysis quality.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2024Article
- Large-scale systematic review support for guideline development in diabetes precision medicine.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2024Article
- A decade of systematic reviews: an assessment of Weill Cornell Medicine's systematic review service.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2023Article
- 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
- An environmental scan of librarian involvement in systematic reviews at Queen's University: 2020 update.The journal of the Canadian Health Libraries Association · 2021Article
- A review of the factors influencing adoption of digital health applications for people living with dementia.Digital healthReview
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.