Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34858096›Full record

ArticleJournal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA2021

Addressing challenges with systematic review teams through effective communication: a case report.

Linda C O'Dwyer, Q Eileen Wafford

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

2 authors.

Linda C O'Dwyerl-odwyer@northwestern.edu, Head of Research and Information Services, Galter Health Sciences Library and Learning Center, Feinberg School of Medicine Northwestern University, Chicago, IL.ORCID 0000-0003-0400-778X
Q Eileen Waffordq-wafford@northwestern.edu, Research Librarian, Galter Health Sciences Library and Learning Center, Feinberg School of Medicine Northwestern, Chicago, IL.ORCID 0000-0001-5228-8219

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEvery step in the systematic review process has challenges, ranging from resistance by review teams to adherence to standard methodology to low-energy commitment to full participation. These challenges can derail the project and result in significant delays, duplication of work, and failure to complete the review. Communication during the systematic review process is key to ensuring it runs smoothly and is identified as a core competency for librarians involved in systematic reviews. CASE PRESENTATION: This case report presents effective communication approaches that our librarians employ to address challenges encountered while working with systematic review teams. The communication strategies we describe engage teams through information, questions, and action items and lead to productive collaborations with publishable systematic reviews.

conclusionsEffective communication with review teams keeps systematic review projects moving forward. The techniques covered in this case study strive to minimize misunderstandings, educate collaborators, and, in our experience, have led to multiple successful collaborations and publications. Librarians working in the systematic review space will recognize these challenges and can adapt these techniques to their own environments.

Indexed as

LibrariansCommunicationHumansSystematic Reviews as Topiccommunicationexpectationsprocess managementproject managementsystematic reviewteam management

Identifiers

PMID34858096
PMCPMC8608185

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.