The Effect of Librarian Involvement on the Quality of Systematic Reviews in Dental Medicine

Overview

Journal PLoS One

Specialties General Medicine
Science

Date 2021 Sep 1

PMID 34469487

Citations 17

Authors

Jana Schellinger

Kerry Sewell

Jamie E Bloss

Tristan Ebron

Carrie Forbes

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objectives: To determine whether librarian or information specialist authorship is associated with better reproducibility of the search, at least three databases searched, and better reporting quality in dental systematic reviews (SRs).

Methods: SRs from the top ten dental research journals (as determined by Journal Citation Reports and Scimago) were reviewed for search quality and reproducibility by independent reviewers using two Qualtrics survey instruments. Data was reviewed for all SRs based on reproducibility and librarian participation and further reviewed for search quality of reproducible searches.

Results: Librarians were co-authors in only 2.5% of the 913 included SRs and librarians were mentioned or acknowledged in only 9% of included SRs. Librarian coauthors were associated with more reproducible searches, higher search quality, and at least three databases searched. Although the results indicate librarians are associated with improved SR quality, due to the small number of SRs that included a librarian, results were not statistically significant.

Conclusion: Despite guidance from organizations that produce SR guidelines recommending the inclusion of a librarian or information specialist on the review team, and despite evidence showing that librarians improve the reproducibility of searches and the reporting of methodology in SRs, librarians are not being included in SRs in the field of dental medicine. The authors of this review recommend the inclusion of a librarian on SR teams in dental medicine and other fields.

Citing Articles

Librarian involvement on knowledge synthesis articles and its relationship to article citation count and Journal Impact Factor.

Alexander K, Hall K, Chen Y J Can Health Libr Assoc. 2025; 45(3):137-146.

PMID: 40051474 PMC: 11881647. DOI: 10.29173/jchla29798.

Reliability and reproducibility of systematic reviews informing the 2020-2025 Dietary Guidelines for Americans: a pilot study.

Bodnaruc A, Khan H, Shaver N, Bennett A, Wong Y, Gracey C Am J Clin Nutr. 2025; 121(1):111-124.

PMID: 39755432 PMC: 11747194. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajcnut.2024.10.013.

Designing a framework for curriculum building in systematic review competencies for librarians: a case report.

Farris D, Lebo R, Price C J Med Libr Assoc. 2024; 112(4):357-363.

PMID: 39429500 PMC: 11486078. DOI: 10.5195/jmla.2024.1930.

Large-scale systematic review support for guideline development in diabetes precision medicine.

Bjorklund M, Aronsson K J Med Libr Assoc. 2024; 112(3):275-280.

PMID: 39308915 PMC: 11412120. DOI: 10.5195/jmla.2024.1863.

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

Whitney R, Shih M, Gordis T, Nguyen S, Meyer T, Brennan E J Med Libr Assoc. 2024; 112(3):261-274.

PMID: 39308914 PMC: 11412119. DOI: 10.5195/jmla.2024.1774.

References

Hasuike A, Iguchi S, Suzuki D, Kawano E, Sato S . Systematic review and assessment of systematic reviews examining the effect of periodontal treatment on glycemic control in patients with diabetes. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2017; 22(2):e167-e176. PMC: 5359698. DOI: 10.4317/medoral.21555. View

Sampson M, McGowan J . Errors in search strategies were identified by type and frequency. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006; 59(10):1057-63. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.01.007. View

Moher D, Tetzlaff J, Tricco A, Sampson M, Altman D . Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews. PLoS Med. 2007; 4(3):e78. PMC: 1831728. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0040078. View

Beverley C, Booth A, Bath P . The role of the information specialist in the systematic review process: a health information case study. Health Info Libr J. 2003; 20(2):65-74. DOI: 10.1046/j.1471-1842.2003.00411.x. View

Schvaneveldt N, Stellrecht E . Assessing the roles and challenges of librarians in dental systematic and scoping reviews. J Med Libr Assoc. 2021; 109(1):52-61. PMC: 7772970. DOI: 10.5195/jmla.2021.1031. View

Rethlefsen M, Farrell A, Trzasko L, Brigham T . Librarian co-authors correlated with higher quality reported search strategies in general internal medicine systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2015; 68(6):617-26. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.11.025. View

Koffel J . 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. PMC: 4418838. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0125931. View

Page M, McKenzie J, Bossuyt P, Boutron I, Hoffmann T, Mulrow C . The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. PLoS Med. 2021; 18(3):e1003583. PMC: 8007028. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1003583. View

Cumpston M, Li T, Page M, Chandler J, Welch V, Higgins J . Updated guidance for trusted systematic reviews: a new edition of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019; 10:ED000142. PMC: 10284251. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.ED000142. View

10.

Bassani R, Pereira G, Page M, Tricco A, Moher D, Sarkis-Onofre R . Systematic reviews in dentistry: Current status, epidemiological and reporting characteristics. J Dent. 2019; 82:71-84. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2019.01.014. View

11.

Batten J, Brackett A . Ensuring the rigor in systematic reviews: Part 3, the value of the search. Heart Lung. 2020; 50(2):220-222. DOI: 10.1016/j.hrtlng.2020.08.005. View

12.

Stroup D, Berlin J, Morton S, Olkin I, Williamson G, Rennie D . Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA. 2000; 283(15):2008-12. DOI: 10.1001/jama.283.15.2008. View

13.

Pussegoda K, Turner L, Garritty C, Mayhew A, Skidmore B, Stevens A . Systematic review adherence to methodological or reporting quality. Syst Rev. 2017; 6(1):131. PMC: 5516390. DOI: 10.1186/s13643-017-0527-2. View

14.

Hua F, Walsh T, Glenny A, Worthington H . Surveys on Reporting Guideline Usage in Dental Journals. J Dent Res. 2016; 95(11):1207-13. DOI: 10.1177/0022034516657803. View

15.

Sideri S, Papageorgiou S, Eliades T . Are orthodontic systematic reviews registered a priori in PROSPERO?. J Orthod. 2017; 44(4):249-255. DOI: 10.1080/14653125.2017.1370773. View

16.

Golder S, Loke Y, McIntosh H . Poor reporting and inadequate searches were apparent in systematic reviews of adverse effects. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008; 61(5):440-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.06.005. View

17.

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman D . Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009; 6(7):e1000097. PMC: 2707599. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097. View

18.

Nawijn F, Ham W, Houwert R, Groenwold R, Hietbrink F, Smeeing D . Quality of reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in emergency medicine based on the PRISMA statement. BMC Emerg Med. 2019; 19(1):19. PMC: 6371507. DOI: 10.1186/s12873-019-0233-6. View

19.

Faggion Jr C, Huivin R, Aranda L, Pandis N, Alarcon M . The search and selection for primary studies in systematic reviews published in dental journals indexed in MEDLINE was not fully reproducible. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018; 98:53-61. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.02.011. View

20.

Salvador-Olivan J, Marco-Cuenca G, Arquero-Aviles R . Errors in search strategies used in systematic reviews and their effects on information retrieval. J Med Libr Assoc. 2019; 107(2):210-221. PMC: 6466507. DOI: 10.5195/jmla.2019.567. View