Sent from my iPhone

On Sep 11, 2012, at 4:20 PM, Amy Price <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> 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 findŠthere 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 don¹t 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 else¹s 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. I¹ve 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 others¹ 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 Collaboration¹s
>>> 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
>>

--
Susan Fowler, MLIS
Medical Librarian

Evidence at Becker:
http://beckerguides.wustl.edu/ebm

Mobile Resources Guide:
http://beckerguides.wustl.edu/mobileresources

Becker Medical Library, Washington University in St. Louis
314-362-8092
[log in to unmask]