 |
 |
Thank you for the excellent resources and this discussion. Ahmed, I have had this exclusivity happen to me on a couple of occasions. It annoys me greatly particularly as the same groups have come back needing my expertise on a later occasion. With myself I can understand they could be hesitant but with your qualifications, professional and compassionate communications skills and publications I am shocked that any group would exclude you. I guess it boils down to human habits and decision making that is not thought through and that this happens everywhere not just with medical librarians. I am actually quite in awe of medical librarians and what they are able to findthere is nothing like having an expert on board but for the times we have to go it alone this information is very helpful Best, Amy On 9/10/12 11:11 AM, "Patricia Anderson" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >I agree with Kate on the single-searcher-problem 1000%! I teach about >this in my classes on the topic. When I am working on systematic >review searches, well, I am really pretty good, but I find when >another librarian is partnering with me, the more contentious the >process the more we both learn from it, and the better the search >strategy ends up being. The best reviews have two searchers, the worst >have single clinician searchers. IMHO, of course. > > - Patricia > >On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 4:01 AM, Kate Misso <[log in to unmask]> >wrote: >> Dear Susan, >> You raise lots of interesting points in your post, some of which have >>straightforward answers and others I still donšt know the answer to >>after nearly 15 years of literature searching ! >> Checking for errors is an essential part of the searching process. Not >>only to catch someone elsešs errors as you say, but also to check for >>our own because we all make them! If you have spent days drafting and >>re-drafting a strategy, it can be incredibly difficult to objectively >>check your own strategy for mistakes or missed terms. Išve always been >>surprised that every other step in the systematic review process was >>checked twice: screening, data extraction and analysis etc. However the >>searching was usually left to a single searcher. Strategies were >>circulated to the review team for comment. But non-searchers often found >>a complex search strategy quite difficult to unpick, let alone comment on >> Fortunately there is a fantastic tool that makes methodical checking of >>search strategies much simpler, both for other searchers to check and >>also reviewers: >> >> McGowan J, Sampson M, Lefebvre C. An evidence based checklist for the >>peer review of electronic search strategies (PRESS EBC). Evidence Based >>Library and Information Practice 2010;5(1):1-6. >> >> Related publications: >> Sampson M, McGowan J, Cogo E, Grimshaw J, Moher D, Lefebvre C. An >>evidence-based practice guideline for the peer review of electronic >>search strategies. J Clin Epidemiol 2009;62(9):944-52. >> Sampson M, McGowan J, Lefebvre C, Moher D, Grimshaw J. PRESS: peer >>review of electronic search strategies. Ottawa: Canadian Agency for >>Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH), 2008 Available from: >>http://www.cadth.ca/index.php/en/hta/reports-publications/search/publicat >>ion/78 >> >> In my team at Kleijnen Systematic Reviews, we ensure that for every >>project at least the main search strategy (usually Embase) is >>independently peer reviewed by a second Information Specialist. We use >>the PRESS-EBC, and this step is clearly described as part of our >>systematic review method in every proposal, protocol and SR report. We >>use the PRESS-EBC as a teaching tool to help novice searchers (and >>reviewers) break a complex strategy down into easy to understand chunks, >>so that they (hopefully) feel more confident about commenting on draft >>strategies, and also making suggestions for additional terms. The main >>CADTH PRESS report has great explanations for the different components >>of searching (indexing terms, field tags, Boolean, truncation etc) and I >>have used it to support trainee Information Specialists as they develop >>their searching skills. >> I am fortunate to work in a team of systematic review searchers, so we >>can check and comment on each othersš strategies. For a solo searcher, >>there is an internet forum to elicit (or provide) peer review of >>strategies from an international collaboration of searchers. >> http://pressforum.pbworks.com/ >> The Cochrane Collaboration have also set up a peer review step so that >>trial search co-ordinators and review authors can request peer review of >>their search strategies, which I think is via the Collaborationšs >>intranet (Archie). >> >> These are all really helpful ways of improving our search methods to >>ensure robust and comprehensive strategy developement. We can also >>contribute our comments and subject experience to help our peers develop >>their own searching. >> Best wishes, >> Kate Misso >> >> Kate Misso >> Information Specialist Manager >> Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd. >> Unit 6 >> Escrick Business Park >> Riccall Road >> York YO19 6FD >> Tel: 01904 727989 >> Email: [log in to unmask] >> Web: www.systematic-reviews.com > > > >-- >Patricia Anderson, [log in to unmask] >Emerging Technologies Librarian >University of Michigan >http://www.lib.umich.edu/users/pfa >