 |
 |
Hi Melinda, The barriers and attitudes to researchers following searching guidelines is something that my colleagues are informally researching within LSHTM right now. We have no conclusions so far but we hope to have something to share during 2018. Jane Jane Falconer User Support Services Librarian Library & Archives Service, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine From: UK medical / health care library community / information workers [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of melinda Sent: 27 September 2017 17:38 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: [LIS-MEDICAL] "Cutting edge research" and underutilisation of libraries - idea for discussion. Hi, I was recently wondering if anyone had done any work on what the barriers are for researchers not following SR guidelines. I have lots of guesses (they don't know, they don't care, they don't agree...) but I'm not sure I've seen anyone publish anything that explores this. (I put this Q out on twitter recently, but not much came of it). As for capturing comments in Pubmed Commons, I created a zotero group for that https://www.zotero.org/groups/1412159/literature_search_comments_in_pubmed_commons. Please join and add any that you come across. Though I have another related rant on this topic, we can't comment in the commons if we don't get authorship :( Literature search comments in pubmed commons<https://www.zotero.org/groups/1412159/literature_search_comments_in_pubmed_commons> www.zotero.org<http://www.zotero.org> Zotero is a powerful, easy-to-use research tool that helps you gather, organize, and analyze sources and then share the results of your research. Melinda Davies [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> twitter: @melsydavies ________________________________ From: UK medical / health care library community / information workers <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> on behalf of Nockels Keith - Clinical Librarian <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> Sent: 27 September 2017 12:53 To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: "Cutting edge research" and underutilisation of libraries - idea for discussion. I think there could well be interest now. We have seen an increase in requests for advice or searching from people doing SRs. I work for some of the week at the University of Leicester library and the same is happening there, including from people outside health. I'd be keen to be involved too. MLA, I know, has a systematic review special interest group, so there's a bit of a precedent too. Keith [Description: Description: Description: hello_my_name_is_logo_coloured] Keith Nockels Clinical Librarian Cancer, Cardiology, Genetics, Haematology, Renal, Urology, Vascular Odames Library Level 1, Victoria Building Leicester Royal Infirmary Infirmary Square Leicester LE1 5WW 0116 258 5558 [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> (Working hours: Wed - Fri 0845 - 1645) [Description: logo_01_small] [Description: HoldOnToOurHearts2016FinalLogoSig] From: UK medical / health care library community / information workers [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Bethel, Alison Sent: 27 September 2017 13:18 To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: "Cutting edge research" and underutilisation of libraries - idea for discussion. Really interesting discussion, thanks to Kate for the excellent list of research and papers below. There are a few information specialist groups out there but they are closed groups eg ISSG InterTASC IS sub-group and Cochrane IR Methods group. It would be great to see something a bit more open to all sectors and perhaps other fields eg environment and education. I approached the HLG a few years ago about a sub group for those involved in SRs (they didn't think there was enough interest). Perhaps it could be a CILIP special interest group in itself as SRs and searching go wider than health? I'd be very keen to be involved. Many thanks, Alison Bethel Information Specialist From: UK medical / health care library community / information workers [mailto:[log in to unmask]]<mailto:[mailto:[log in to unmask]]> On Behalf Of Kate Misso Sent: 27 September 2017 11:47 To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: "Cutting edge research" and underutilisation of libraries - idea for discussion. Dear all, There are standards and guides in place; many do flag information expertise: Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Standards for Systematic Reviews of Comparative Effectiveness Research - several mentions of info professionals and searching expertise: http://www.nationalacademies.org/hmd/Reports/2011/Finding-What-Works-in-Health-Care-Standards-for-Systematic-Reviews/Standards.aspx<http://vsea.xuhl-tr.nhs.uk:32224/?dmVyPTEuMDAxJiZmNGI1NzQ3NTFhNTIyZWJiMT01OUNCOTcyMF85ODAyNl82ODkyXzMmJjI2YWUzMWQzZTZhYjAxMz0xMjIzJiZ1cmw9aHR0cCUzQSUyRiUyRnd3dyUyRW5hdGlvbmFsYWNhZGVtaWVzJTJFb3JnJTJGaG1kJTJGUmVwb3J0cyUyRjIwMTElMkZGaW5kaW5nLVdoYXQtV29ya3MtaW4tSGVhbHRoLUNhcmUtU3RhbmRhcmRzLWZvci1TeXN0ZW1hdGljLVJldmlld3MlMkZTdGFuZGFyZHMlMkVhc3B4> Cochrane Collaboration. Methodological Expectations of Cochrane Intervention Reviews (MECIR). Standards for the conduct and reporting of new Cochrane Intervention Reviews, reporting of protocols and the planning, conduct and reporting of updates (22 June 2016) [Internet]. London: Cochrane Collaboration, 2016 [accessed 27.9.17]. Available from: http://community.cochrane.org/mecir-manual<http://vsea.xuhl-tr.nhs.uk:32224/?dmVyPTEuMDAxJiZiM2E5NmQ2MTBmMmY2NGE4MT01OUNCOTcyMF85ODAyNl82ODkyXzMmJjI3NWZhMWI3ZjMxZjQ1Yj0xMjIzJiZ1cmw9aHR0cCUzQSUyRiUyRmNvbW11bml0eSUyRWNvY2hyYW5lJTJFb3JnJTJGbWVjaXItbWFudWFs> An extension to the PRISMA statement, specifically focussed on reporting of search methods, is currently underway and will only serve to strength our position as expert searchers: Rethlefsen M, Koffel J, Kirtley S. PRISMA-Search (PRISMA-S) Extension to PRISMA Development Protocol [Internet]. n.d. [accessed 12.9.17]. Available from: http://www.equator-network.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/Protocol-PRISMA-S-Delphi.pdf<http://vsea.xuhl-tr.nhs.uk:32224/?dmVyPTEuMDAxJiZhYmYwN2E3ZTViNzQyZWE1MD01OUNCOTcyMF85ODAyNl82ODkyXzMmJjkzN2UyMWU3ZDM3ZTE0Nj0xMjIzJiZ1cmw9aHR0cCUzQSUyRiUyRnd3dyUyRWVxdWF0b3ItbmV0d29yayUyRW9yZyUyRndwLWNvbnRlbnQlMkZ1cGxvYWRzJTJGMjAwOSUyRjAyJTJGUHJvdG9jb2wtUFJJU01BLVMtRGVscGhpJTJFcGRm> Availability of guidance and adherence are sadly different things! There is a well-established evidence base that illustrates the impact of weak search methods undermining the SR process and resulting in research waste, and the value involvement of info professionals bring to SRs (just a few below): Rethlefsen ML, Farrell AM, Osterhaus Trzasko LC, Brigham TJ. Librarian co-authors correlated with higher quality reported search strategies in general internal medicine systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 2015;68(6):617-26. Rethlefsen ML, Murad MH, Livingston EH. Engaging medical librarians to improve the quality of review articles. JAMA 2014;312(10):999-1000. Li L, Tian J, Tian H, Moher D, Liang F, Jiang T, et al. Network meta-analyses could be improved by searching more sources and by involving a librarian. J Clin Epidemiol 2014;67(9):1001-7. Koffel JB. Use of recommended search strategies in systematic reviews and the impact of librarian involvement: a cross-sectional survey of recent authors. PLoS One 2015;10(5):e0125931. This issue is something we are keenly aware of and working to highlight within our team of Information Specialists at KSR. Critically appraising published SRs using the ROBIS (Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews) tool [https://tinyurl.com/ROBIS-D2<http://vsea.xuhl-tr.nhs.uk:32224/?dmVyPTEuMDAxJiZhOGU3MzYzZTQxNjkyNWIyMD01OUNCOTcyMF85ODAyNl82ODkyXzMmJjg2YWZiNDA3MjM3ZWQwZD0xMjIzJiZ1cmw9aHR0cHMlM0ElMkYlMkZ0aW55dXJsJTJFY29tJTJGUk9CSVMtRDI=>] allows the reader to gauge the potential impact of an SR's methods on its overall Risk of Bias. Within the ROBIS tool, Domain 2 focusses specifically on the way the evidence was identified and screened. As searching is the foundation of a systematic review, a poor or biased search frequently results in an SR that is at risk of bias. As part of our work building the KSR Evidence database of critically appraised systematic reviews, we have carried out in-depth work analysing how well SR searches are reported and conducted. The work is ongoing, however we have started presenting some of our findings at recent conferences. As Keith noted, Janine and I presented on this last week at the International Clinical Librarian Conference in Leicester: Ross J, De Kock S, Stirk L, Noake C, Misso K, Duffy S. Systematic reviews assessed as high risk of bias due to avoidable failures in searching: analysis of a data set of critically appraised systematic reviews. Presented at the 9th International Clinical Librarian Conference (ICLC); 21-22nd September 2017; Leicester: UK. 2017. Misso K, Ross J, Noake C, de Kock S, Stirk L, Duffy S. Assessing systematic review search methods for risk of bias (RoB): how to spot common inadequacies and errors in the conduct and reporting of search strategies. Workshop presented at the 9th International Clinical Librarian Conference (ICLC); 21-22nd September 2017; Leicester: UK. 2017. And my colleague, Shelley de Kock, gave much more detail about our findings a few weeks ago in Cape Town at the Global Evidence Summit: de Kock S, Ross J, Stirk L, Noake C, Misso K, Duffy S, et al. Systematic reviews assessed as high risk of bias due to avoidable failures in searching: analysis of a data set of critically appraised systematic reviews. Presented at the Global Evidence Summit; 13-16th September 2017; Cape Town: South Africa. 2017. These materials will be available from our website in the next week: http://www.systematic-reviews.com/<http://vsea.xuhl-tr.nhs.uk:32224/?dmVyPTEuMDAxJiZiM2E5NmQ2MTBmMmY2NGJjMD01OUNCOTcyMF85ODAyNl82ODkyXzMmJmE2ZmI5MWQ2ODJiZjQ0Nz0xMjIzJiZ1cmw9aHR0cCUzQSUyRiUyRnd3dyUyRXN5c3RlbWF0aWMtcmV2aWV3cyUyRWNvbSUyRg==> I think you have highlighted the main issue well. It is not a case that researchers don't realise we can add value or be involved. I think they really do think searching is easy and they can do it really well. Perhaps we need to flag up when things have been done poorly via PubMed Commons and open a dialogue with publishers who think they are adhering to PRISMA? Until info specialists are routinely involved in peer review within the publication process, post-publication peer review is an option. I think one approach is to professionalise our support, by offering constructive peer-review (using the PRESS-EBC) prior to searching being conducted, and by ensuring we write up our own searches to a high standard and reference the appropriate guidance in our work. This includes referencing any study design filters we use. I would be happy to be involved in a group or discussion working to raise awareness in this way. There are many professional systematic review searchers outside of HE and academia; I don't think this is only an academic issue, this is an issue for the wider profession. Best wishes, Kate Kate Misso Information Specialist Manager Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd. Unit 6 Escrick Business Park Riccall Road York YO19 6FD Tel: 01904 727991 Email: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> Web: www.systematic-reviews.com<http://vsea.xuhl-tr.nhs.uk:32224/?dmVyPTEuMDAxJiZiM2E5NmQ2MTBmMmY2NGJjMD01OUNCOTcyMF85ODAyNl82ODkyXzMmJmE2ZmI5MWQ2ODJiZjQ0Nz0xMjIzJiZ1cmw9aHR0cCUzQSUyRiUyRnd3dyUyRXN5c3RlbWF0aWMtcmV2aWV3cyUyRWNvbQ==> https://ksrevidence.com/<http://vsea.xuhl-tr.nhs.uk:32224/?dmVyPTEuMDAxJiZiMGFlNmI3NDQzNjkyZmFlMT01OUNCOTcyMF85ODAyNl82ODkyXzMmJjM3YmYyNDA3MjM3ZWQwZD0xMjIzJiZ1cmw9aHR0cHMlM0ElMkYlMkZrc3JldmlkZW5jZSUyRWNvbSUyRg==> ***Please note my working days are usually Monday to Thursday*** From: UK medical / health care library community / information workers [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Nockels Keith - Clinical Librarian Sent: 27 September 2017 10:34 To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: "Cutting edge research" and underutilisation of libraries - idea for discussion. Hello Rob, and all, A very similar thing came up last week at the International Clinical Librarian Conference, in regard to systematic reviews, and how they very often have terrible search strategies and very bad reporting, despite the existence of guidelines like PRISMA. An interesting aside to this is how many reviews with bad reporting actually get published! Librarians do spend time, of course, making people aware of the valuable help they can give researchers and reviewers, and offering that help, but it does help when those researchers and reviewers are made aware of the need to involve librarians by things like books and reporting guidelines. There is definitely scope for making those resources say so. I'd be interested in being involved in any group, too. Best wishes, Keith [Description: Description: Description: hello_my_name_is_logo_coloured] Keith Nockels Clinical Librarian Cancer, Cardiology, Genetics, Haematology, Renal, Urology, Vascular Odames Library Level 1, Victoria Building Leicester Royal Infirmary Infirmary Square Leicester LE1 5WW 0116 258 5558 [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> (Working hours: Wed - Fri 0845 - 1645) [Description: logo_01_small] [Description: HoldOnToOurHearts2016FinalLogoSig] From: UK medical / health care library community / information workers [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Caroline DeBrun Sent: 27 September 2017 10:25 To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: "Cutting edge research" and underutilisation of libraries - idea for discussion. Dear Rob, At PHE we have a Publication Standard that we ask people to adhere to when writing publications, and this encourages the involvement of library services when writing publications. I definitely agree with you that authors need to be aware of how research can be improved by involving libraries and librarians. I would be interested in being involved with your group, time allowing. Thanks for bringing a really interesting topic up for discussion. With best wishes, from, Caroline Mrs Caroline De Brún, DipLIS, PhD Knowledge & Evidence Specialist - South West and Thames Valley Knowledge & Library Services Public Health England Email: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> Tel: 07919112501 www.gov.uk/phe<http://vsea.xuhl-tr.nhs.uk:32224/?dmVyPTEuMDAxJiY1ZTgzOWNkMmM5MDQ1ZjA0YT01OUNCNkU3RF8xODAyNl82MzI3XzEmJjM4NGU3NmRkZWRhODhhMz0xMjIzJiZ1cmw9aHR0cCUzQSUyRiUyRnd3dyUyRWdvdiUyRXVrJTJGcGhl> Follow us on Twitter @PHE_uk Protecting and improving the nation's health From: UK medical / health care library community / information workers [mailto:[log in to unmask]]<mailto:[mailto:[log in to unmask]]> On Behalf Of Robert Polson Sent: 27 September 2017 10:12 To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> Subject: "Cutting edge research" and underutilisation of libraries - idea for discussion. Idea for discussion. Has anyone else noted the phenomena of people publishing "cutting edge" research yet when you examine this the feeling is that perhaps if they had used library services their research could have gone from good to excellent. Examples being - using keywords only in their search strategy or using a minimal set of databases. The Cochrane and York handbooks, PRISMA, CONSORT and the plethora of book published on doing systematic reviews/research rarely mention utilising library services/information expertise in any depth. How does the group feel about this contention? If folks agree would it help if we got together as a group so that the likes of these resources more strongly stipulate that library services/librarians should be used in enhancing the evidence base and quality of the research? Thanks. Rob Rob Polson Subject Librarian Highland Health Sciences Library Centre for Health Science Old Perth Road INVERNESS IV2 3JH Tel No: 01463-279836 Mail: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> ************************************************************************** The information contained in the EMail and any attachments is confidential and intended solely and for the attention and use of the named addressee(s). It may not be disclosed to any other person without the express authority of Public Health England, or the intended recipient, or both. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not disclose, copy, distribute or retain this message or any part of it. This footnote also confirms that this EMail has been swept for computer viruses by Symantec.Cloud, but please re-sweep any attachments before opening or saving. http://www.gov.uk/PHE<http://vsea.xuhl-tr.nhs.uk:32224/?dmVyPTEuMDAxJiZiM2E5NmQ2MTBmMmY2NGJjMD01OUNCOTcyMF85ODAyNl82ODkyXzMmJmE2ZmI5MDk3ZTJlYWU1Nz0xMjIzJiZ1cmw9aHR0cCUzQSUyRiUyRnd3dyUyRWdvdiUyRXVrJTJGUEhF> ************************************************************************** ________________________________ This e-mail, including any attached files, may contain confidential and / or privileged information and is intended for the exclusive use of the addressee(s) printed above. If you are not the addressee(s), any unauthorised review, disclosure, reproduction, other dissemination or use of this e-mail, or taking of any action in reliance upon the information contained herein, is strictly prohibited. If this e-mail has been sent to you in error, please return to the sender. No guarantee can be given that the contents of this email are virus free - The University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust cannot be held responsible for any failure by the recipient(s) to test for viruses before opening any attachments. The information contained in this e-mail may be the subject of public disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 - unless legally exempt from disclosure, the confidentiality of this e-mail and your reply cannot be guaranteed. Copyright in this email and any attachments created by us remains vested in the University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust. ________________________________ This e-mail, including any attached files, may contain confidential and / or privileged information and is intended for the exclusive use of the addressee(s) printed above. If you are not the addressee(s), any unauthorised review, disclosure, reproduction, other dissemination or use of this e-mail, or taking of any action in reliance upon the information contained herein, is strictly prohibited. If this e-mail has been sent to you in error, please return to the sender. No guarantee can be given that the contents of this email are virus free - The University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust cannot be held responsible for any failure by the recipient(s) to test for viruses before opening any attachments. The information contained in this e-mail may be the subject of public disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 - unless legally exempt from disclosure, the confidentiality of this e-mail and your reply cannot be guaranteed. Copyright in this email and any attachments created by us remains vested in the University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust.