ArticleThe journal of the Canadian Health Libraries Association2024
Bibliometric analysis of librarian involvement in systematic reviews at the University of Alberta.
Article in The journal of the Canadian Health Libraries Association, 2024. 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.
- Librarian involvement on knowledge synthesis articles and its relationship to article citation count and Journal Impact Factor.The journal of the Canadian Health Libraries Association · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: It is well documented that librarian involvement in systematic reviews generally increases quality of reporting and the review overall. We used bibliometric analysis methods to analyze the level of librarian involvement in systematic reviews conducted at the University of Alberta (U of A). Methods: Using Web of Science (WoS), we searched for systematic reviews completed in the years 2016-2020 with a U of A co-author. Systematic reviews identified through WoS were screened in two phases: ( Results: 640 reviews were analyzed for the following categories: ( Conclusion: There is a great deal of variation in how the work of librarians is reflected in systematic reviews. This was particularly apparent in reviews where a librarian was mentioned in the body of the review but they were not named as an author or formally acknowledged. Continuing to educate researchers about the work of librarians is crucial to fully represent the value librarians bring to systematic reviews. Bibliometric analysis provides useful insights on service gaps for specific disciplines or research areas that are currently not using librarian support in systematic review publications, which can help inform service planning.
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.