LIBRARIAN'S ROLE IN DENTISTRY SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS: AN EPIDEMIOLOGIC STUDY

IF 0.2 Q4 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE

Perspectivas em Ciencia da Informacao Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.1590/1981-5344/25776

Karyn Munyk Lehmkuhl, Crislaine Zurilda Silveira, Patrícia Pauletto, Maria Gorete Monteguti Savi, André Luís Porporatti, Graziela De Luca Canto

{"title":"LIBRARIAN'S ROLE IN DENTISTRY SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS: AN EPIDEMIOLOGIC STUDY","authors":"Karyn Munyk Lehmkuhl, Crislaine Zurilda Silveira, Patrícia Pauletto, Maria Gorete Monteguti Savi, André Luís Porporatti, Graziela De Luca Canto","doi":"10.1590/1981-5344/25776","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Objective: Identify the librarian presence in dentistry systematic reviews. The primary outcome was the frequency and role of librarian presence. The secondary outcomes were to assess whether there are differences regarding impact factor, strategy availability, number of databases, and registration of protocol, in the systematic reviews that included or not a librarian. Methods: It were included systematic reviews in dentistry, in English, published in dental journals, indexed from July 1st, 2018 to July 1st, 2019 available on MEDLINE/PubMed. For statistical analysis, the T-test and Pearson's chi-squared test were used. The significance level was 5%. Results: Among 280 included studies 14% systematic reviews mention librarian participation, 9% as consultants and 5% as co-authors. There was no statistical difference for impact factor (p=0.928) outcomes, search strategy available (p=0.850), and number of database (p=0.240) among the studies that had or not the presence of the librarian. The number of systematic reviews registered was higher when the librarian was present. The databases mentioned more frequently were MEDLINE, Cochrane, and Embase. Conclusion: The frequency of librarian participation in the included systematic reviews was 14%. The most frequent participation was as consultants. Systematic reviews with a librarian on the team were associated with more protocol registration.","PeriodicalId":45038,"journal":{"name":"Perspectivas em Ciencia da Informacao","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Perspectivas em Ciencia da Informacao","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1590/1981-5344/25776","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

ABSTRACT Objective: Identify the librarian presence in dentistry systematic reviews. The primary outcome was the frequency and role of librarian presence. The secondary outcomes were to assess whether there are differences regarding impact factor, strategy availability, number of databases, and registration of protocol, in the systematic reviews that included or not a librarian. Methods: It were included systematic reviews in dentistry, in English, published in dental journals, indexed from July 1st, 2018 to July 1st, 2019 available on MEDLINE/PubMed. For statistical analysis, the T-test and Pearson's chi-squared test were used. The significance level was 5%. Results: Among 280 included studies 14% systematic reviews mention librarian participation, 9% as consultants and 5% as co-authors. There was no statistical difference for impact factor (p=0.928) outcomes, search strategy available (p=0.850), and number of database (p=0.240) among the studies that had or not the presence of the librarian. The number of systematic reviews registered was higher when the librarian was present. The databases mentioned more frequently were MEDLINE, Cochrane, and Embase. Conclusion: The frequency of librarian participation in the included systematic reviews was 14%. The most frequent participation was as consultants. Systematic reviews with a librarian on the team were associated with more protocol registration.

查看原文本刊更多论文

图书馆管理员在牙科系统评价中的作用:一项流行病学研究

摘要目的:确定牙科系统综述中图书馆员的存在。主要结果是图书管理员出现的频率和作用。次要结果是评估在包括或不包括图书管理员的系统评价中，在影响因子、策略可用性、数据库数量和方案注册方面是否存在差异。方法:纳入MEDLINE/PubMed检索的2018年7月1日至2019年7月1日发表在牙科期刊上的英文牙科系统综述。统计分析采用t检验和Pearson卡方检验。显著性水平为5%。结果:在280项纳入的研究中，14%的系统评论提到了图书馆员的参与，9%的人作为顾问，5%的人作为共同作者。在有或没有馆员在场的研究中，影响因子(p=0.928)结果、可用的检索策略(p=0.850)和数据库数量(p=0.240)均无统计学差异。当图书管理员在场时，注册的系统评论数量更高。提及频率较高的数据库是MEDLINE、Cochrane和Embase。结论:图书馆员参与系统评价的频率为14%。参与最多的是顾问。与团队中的图书管理员一起进行的系统审查与更多的协议注册有关。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Perspectivas em Ciencia da Informacao INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE-

CiteScore

0.40

自引率

0.00%

发文量

审稿时长

16 weeks

期刊介绍： La revista Perspectivas en Ciencia de la Información es una publicación trimestral de la Escuela de Ciencia de la Información de la Universidad Federal de Minas Gerais. Fue lanzada en 1996, en sustitución a la Revista de la Escuela de Biblioteconomía de la UFMG. Y en el caso de que se produzca un cambio en la calidad de la información y de la comunicación.