ArticleThe journal of the Canadian Health Libraries Association2021
Systematic review support received and needed by researchers: a survey of libraries supporting Ontario medical schools.
Article in The journal of the Canadian Health Libraries Association, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Large-scale systematic review support for guideline development in diabetes precision medicine.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Finding efficient ways to meet the growing demand for library systematic review support is imperative for facilitating the production of high-quality research. The objectives of this study were threefold: 1) to ascertain the systematic review support provided by health sciences libraries at Ontario medical schools and their affiliated hospitals, 2) to determine the perceived educational needs by researchers at these institutions, and 3) to assess the potential usefulness of freely available, online educational modules for researchers that discuss all stages of the systematic review process. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional survey in June and July of 2020. Data was analyzed and presented using median and interquartile range (IQR) for continuous measures, and in proportions for categorical measures. Results: 13 of 19 libraries invited provided usable data. Most libraries spent more time supporting systematic reviews via collaboration and participation than by providing educational support. The perceived needs of library users were contrary to the perceived gaps in researcher support provided by the library/institution. All libraries reported they would find freely available, online educational modules useful for training researchers. Discussion: The next steps for our inter-professional research team will be to develop freely available, online education modules that introduce researchers to all stages of the systematic review process. These modules cannot replace the value that direct support from librarians, biostatisticians or methodology experts can provide, however, they may offer a more efficient way for libraries to familiarize researchers and trainees with best practices and universally accepted reporting guidelines for performing a high-quality review.
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.