ArticleJournal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA2024
Effect of librarian collaboration on otolaryngology systematic review and meta-analysis quality.
Article in Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To determine if librarian collaboration was associated with improved database search quality, search reproducibility, and systematic review reporting in otolaryngology systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Methods: In this retrospective cross-sectional study, PubMed was queried for systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in otolaryngology journals in 2010, 2015, and 2021. Two researchers independently extracted data. Two librarians independently rated search strategy reproducibility and quality for each article. The main outcomes include association of librarian involvement with study reporting quality, search quality, and publication metrics in otolaryngology systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Categorical data were compared with Chi-Squared tests or Fisher's Exact tests. Continuous variables were compared via Mann Whitney U Tests for two groups, and Kruskal-Wallis Tests for three or more groups. Results: Of 559 articles retrieved, 505 were analyzed. More studies indicated librarian involvement in 2021 (n=72, 20.7%) compared to 2015 (n=14, 10.4%) and 2010 (n=2, 9.0%) (p=0.04). 2021 studies showed improvements in properly using a reporting tool (p<0.001), number of databases queried (p<0.001), describing date of database searches (p<0.001), and including a flow diagram (p<0.001). Librarian involvement was associated with using reporting tools (p<0.001), increased number of databases queried (p<0.001), describing date of database search (p=0.002), mentioning search peer reviewer (p=0.02), and reproducibility of search strategies (p<0.001). For search strategy quality, librarian involvement was associated with greater use of "Boolean & proximity operators" (p=0.004), "subject headings" (p<0.001), "text word searching" (p<0.001), and "spelling/syntax/line numbers" (p<0.001). Studies with librarian involvement were associated with publication in journals with higher impact factors for 2015 (p=0.003) and 2021 (p<0.001). Conclusion: Librarian involvement was associated with improved reporting quality and search strategy quality. Our study supports the inclusion of librarians in review teams, and journal editing and peer reviewing teams.
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.