I'm trying to introduce the concept of the rapids review with some of my folks as they want to do an SR- in 5 weeks. They want the thorough search, to track all citations and reasons for no, etc. but they want to do this in a minimum amount of time.
I would appreciate talking with other librarians off-line about this. Maybe we could come up with some guidelines that we bring back to this group (and others) concerning some of the issues raised here.
Helena M. VonVille, MLS, MPH
University of Texas School of Public Health
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
From: Evidence based health (EBH) [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Susan Fowler [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 12:19 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: "systematic reviews" searchers' dilemma
The approach I take is to show that I know what I am doing and I know my role from the beginning without actually pointing out to them that what they are doing is not a systematic review or not up to snuff.
My typical response to a request goes something like...
"I am happy to help you with your systematic review. In preparation for our first meeting, please send me your PICO question, 2-3 articles that you would definitely want to include, and your inclusion and exclusion criteria. Also, who is your PI and the other folks on your research team? What are you using for citation management, ie EndNote, Refworks, etc...? Here<http://beckerguides.wustl.edu/SystematicReviews> is a link to our subject guide on systematic reviews that includes an explanation of our services. Please read it over and let me know if you have any questions. If you haven't yet, you may want to read through the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions<http://handbook.cochrane.org/>. If you decide to publish I am happy to write the methods section on searching. If you want to use one the search strategies in an appendix as suggested in PRISMA<http://www.prisma-statement.org/>, please ask so I can make sure you use the best one and make it publish-ready."
At the first meeting if they seem confused about why I am asking them what databases and other resources they want to include besides PubMed I show them this: http://www.emeraldinsight.com/content_images/fig/2640320102002.png and discuss the concept of publication bias.
I think this approach shows that I am serious and if they are not then I generally don't hear from them again.
Susan Fowler, MLIS
Evidence at Becker:
Systematic Reviews Guide:
Becker Medical Library, Washington University in St. Louis
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 11:30 AM, Adams, Nancy <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
Dear Colleagues around the World:
I'm writing this on behalf of myself and colleagues here at a health sciences library who are increasingly approached by individuals at our academic medical center to provide search expertise for their "systematic review" projects. This is all well and good and we are glad for the opportunity. However, we often face a dilemma when the requesters' understanding of systematic review differs from our own understanding. Often we are approached by people who wish to call a project a "systematic review" when they have no intention of devoting additional time to scrutinizing results from multiple databases and do not have funding for searching databases to which we only have access through fee-based searching. This is exacerbated by the fact that often articles appear in respected journals that have “systematic review” in the article title but that do not seem to be held to the same standards of our own concept of a systematic review.
This question is not about which databases really need to be searched; there have been discussions on this listserv along those lines in the past which I followed. The question is really for search experts on this list: how do you manage expectations of those who ask for your help? How do you articulate the need for standards and negotiate when you feel an ethical responsibility to do a more thorough and complete search than the requesters would like for you to do? We negotiate for authorship and I realize that we could use that as a lever to ensure that the limitations of the methodology are well described in the final manuscript.
Nancy E. Adams, MLIS
Associate Director | Penn State Hershey George T. Harrell Health Sciences Library
Milton S. Hershey Medical Center | Penn State College of Medicine
500 University Drive, PO Box 850 | Hershey, PA 17033-0850 | Phone: 717-531-8989<tel:717-531-8989>
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> | http://med.psu.edu/library