Effect of librarian collaboration on otolaryngology systematic review and meta-analysis quality.

IF 2.9 4区 医学 Q1 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE
Journal of the Medical Library Association Pub Date : 2024-07-01 Epub Date: 2024-07-29 DOI:10.5195/jmla.2024.1774
Rachel Whitney, Michael C Shih, Tamar Gordis, Shaun A Nguyen, Ted A Meyer, Emily A Brennan
{"title":"Effect of librarian collaboration on otolaryngology systematic review and meta-analysis quality.","authors":"Rachel Whitney, Michael C Shih, Tamar Gordis, Shaun A Nguyen, Ted A Meyer, Emily A Brennan","doi":"10.5195/jmla.2024.1774","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To determine if librarian collaboration was associated with improved database search quality, search reproducibility, and systematic review reporting in otolaryngology systematic reviews and meta-analyses.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this retrospective cross-sectional study, PubMed was queried for systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in otolaryngology journals in 2010, 2015, and 2021. Two researchers independently extracted data. Two librarians independently rated search strategy reproducibility and quality for each article. The main outcomes include association of librarian involvement with study reporting quality, search quality, and publication metrics in otolaryngology systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Categorical data were compared with Chi-Squared tests or Fisher's Exact tests. Continuous variables were compared via Mann Whitney U Tests for two groups, and Kruskal-Wallis Tests for three or more groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 559 articles retrieved, 505 were analyzed. More studies indicated librarian involvement in 2021 (n=72, 20.7%) compared to 2015 (n=14, 10.4%) and 2010 (n=2, 9.0%) (p=0.04). 2021 studies showed improvements in properly using a reporting tool (p<0.001), number of databases queried (p<0.001), describing date of database searches (p<0.001), and including a flow diagram (p<0.001). Librarian involvement was associated with using reporting tools (p<0.001), increased number of databases queried (p<0.001), describing date of database search (p=0.002), mentioning search peer reviewer (p=0.02), and reproducibility of search strategies (p<0.001). For search strategy quality, librarian involvement was associated with greater use of \"Boolean & proximity operators\" (p=0.004), \"subject headings\" (p<0.001), \"text word searching\" (p<0.001), and \"spelling/syntax/line numbers\" (p<0.001). Studies with librarian involvement were associated with publication in journals with higher impact factors for 2015 (p=0.003) and 2021 (p<0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Librarian involvement was associated with improved reporting quality and search strategy quality. Our study supports the inclusion of librarians in review teams, and journal editing and peer reviewing teams.</p>","PeriodicalId":47690,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Medical Library Association","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11412119/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the Medical Library Association","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2024.1774","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/29 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To determine if librarian collaboration was associated with improved database search quality, search reproducibility, and systematic review reporting in otolaryngology systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

Methods: In this retrospective cross-sectional study, PubMed was queried for systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in otolaryngology journals in 2010, 2015, and 2021. Two researchers independently extracted data. Two librarians independently rated search strategy reproducibility and quality for each article. The main outcomes include association of librarian involvement with study reporting quality, search quality, and publication metrics in otolaryngology systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Categorical data were compared with Chi-Squared tests or Fisher's Exact tests. Continuous variables were compared via Mann Whitney U Tests for two groups, and Kruskal-Wallis Tests for three or more groups.

Results: Of 559 articles retrieved, 505 were analyzed. More studies indicated librarian involvement in 2021 (n=72, 20.7%) compared to 2015 (n=14, 10.4%) and 2010 (n=2, 9.0%) (p=0.04). 2021 studies showed improvements in properly using a reporting tool (p<0.001), number of databases queried (p<0.001), describing date of database searches (p<0.001), and including a flow diagram (p<0.001). Librarian involvement was associated with using reporting tools (p<0.001), increased number of databases queried (p<0.001), describing date of database search (p=0.002), mentioning search peer reviewer (p=0.02), and reproducibility of search strategies (p<0.001). For search strategy quality, librarian involvement was associated with greater use of "Boolean & proximity operators" (p=0.004), "subject headings" (p<0.001), "text word searching" (p<0.001), and "spelling/syntax/line numbers" (p<0.001). Studies with librarian involvement were associated with publication in journals with higher impact factors for 2015 (p=0.003) and 2021 (p<0.001).

Conclusion: Librarian involvement was associated with improved reporting quality and search strategy quality. Our study supports the inclusion of librarians in review teams, and journal editing and peer reviewing teams.

图书馆员合作对耳鼻喉科系统综述和荟萃分析质量的影响。
目的确定图书馆员的合作是否与提高耳鼻喉科系统综述和荟萃分析的数据库检索质量、检索再现性和系统综述报告有关:在这项回顾性横断面研究中,我们在 PubMed 上查询了 2010 年、2015 年和 2021 年在耳鼻喉科期刊上发表的系统综述和荟萃分析。两名研究人员独立提取数据。两名图书管理员对每篇文章的检索策略再现性和质量进行独立评分。主要结果包括图书馆员的参与与耳鼻喉科系统综述和荟萃分析的研究报告质量、检索质量和发表指标的关系。分类数据采用 Chi-Squared 检验或 Fisher's Exact 检验进行比较。连续变量的比较采用曼-惠特尼 U 检验(两组)和 Kruskal-Wallis 检验(三组或更多组):在检索到的 559 篇文章中,对 505 篇进行了分析。与 2015 年(n=14,10.4%)和 2010 年(n=2,9.0%)相比,2021 年(n=72,20.7%)有更多研究表明图书管理员参与其中(p=0.04)。2021年的研究表明,正确使用报告工具的情况有所改善(p结论:图书馆员的参与与报告质量和检索策略质量的提高有关。我们的研究支持将图书管理员纳入审稿团队、期刊编辑和同行评审团队。
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
Journal of the Medical Library Association
Journal of the Medical Library Association INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE-
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
10.00%
发文量
39
审稿时长
26 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of the Medical Library Association (JMLA) is an international, peer-reviewed journal published quarterly that aims to advance the practice and research knowledgebase of health sciences librarianship. The most current impact factor for the JMLA (from the 2007 edition of Journal Citation Reports) is 1.392.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信