共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 16 毫秒
1.
Martha R Harris 《Journal of the Medical Library Association》2005,93(1):81-87
QUESTION/SETTING: Although the systematic review has become a research standard, little information addresses the actions of the librarian on a systematic review team. METHOD: This article is an observational case study that chronicles a librarian's required involvement, skills, and responsibilities in each stage of a real-life systematic review. MAIN RESULTS: Examining the review process reveals that the librarian's multiple roles as an expert searcher, organizer, and analyzer form an integral part of the Cochrane Collaboration's criteria for conducting systematic reviews. Moreover, the responsibilities of the expert searcher directly reflect the key skills and knowledge depicted in the "Definition of Expert Searching" section of the Medical Library Association's policy statement, "Role of Expert Searching in Health Sciences Libraries." CONCLUSION: Although the librarian's multiple roles are important in all forms of medical research, they are crucial in a systematic review. As an expert searcher, the librarian must interact with the investigators to develop the terms required for a comprehensive search strategy in multiple appropriate sources. As an organizer and analyzer, the librarian must effectively manage the articles and document the search, retrieval, and archival processes. 相似文献
2.
Expert searching in health librarianship: a literature review to identify international issues and Australian concerns 总被引：1，自引：1，他引：0
Lasserre K 《Health information and libraries journal》2012,29(1):3-15
Background: The traditional role of health librarians as expert searchers is under challenge. Objectives: The purpose of this review is to establish health librarians’ views, practices and educational processes on expert searching. Methods: The search strategy was developed in LISTA and then customised for ten other databases: ALISA, PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL, ERIC, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library and Google Scholar. The search terms were (expert search* OR expert retriev* OR mediated search* OR information retriev*) AND librar*. The searches, completed in December 2010 and repeated in May 2011, were limited to English language publications from 2000 to 2011 (unless seminal works). Results: Expert searching remains a key role for health librarians, especially for those supporting systematic reviews or employed as clinical librarians answering clinical questions. Conclusions: Although clients tend to be satisfied with searches carried out for them, improvements are required to effectively position the profession. Evidence‐based guidelines, adherence to transparent standards, review of entry‐level education requirements and a commitment to accredited, rigorous, ongoing professional development will ensure best practice. 相似文献
3.
Alison C. Bethel Morwenna Rogers Rebecca Abbott 《Journal of the Medical Library Association》2021,109(1):97
Background:Systematic reviews are comprehensive, robust, inclusive, transparent, and reproducible when bringing together the evidence to answer a research question. Various guidelines provide recommendations on the expertise required to conduct a systematic review, where and how to search for literature, and what should be reported in the published review. However, the finer details of the search results are not typically reported to allow the search methods or search efficiency to be evaluated.Case Presentation:This case study presents a search summary table, containing the details of which databases were searched, which supplementary search methods were used, and where the included articles were found. It was developed and published alongside a recent systematic review. This simple format can be used in future systematic reviews to improve search results reporting.Conclusions:Publishing a search summary table in all systematic reviews would add to the growing evidence base about information retrieval, which would help in determining which databases to search for which type of review (in terms of either topic or scope), what supplementary search methods are most effective, what type of literature is being included, and where it is found. It would also provide evidence for future searching and search methods research. 相似文献
4.
Hartley J 《Bulletin of the Medical Library Association》2000,88(4):332-337
BACKGROUND: There is a small body of research on improving the clarity of abstracts in general that is relevant to improving the clarity of abstracts of systematic reviews. OBJECTIVES: To summarize this earlier research and indicate its implications for writing the abstracts of systematic reviews. METHOD: Literature review with commentary on three main features affecting the clarity of abstracts: their language, structure, and typographical presentation. CONCLUSIONS: The abstracts of systematic reviews should be easier to read than the abstracts of medical research articles, as they are targeted at a wider audience. The aims, methods, results, and conclusions of systematic reviews need to be presented in a consistent way to help search and retrieval. The typographic detailing of the abstracts (type-sizes, spacing, and weights) should be planned to help, rather than confuse, the reader. 相似文献
5.
Greg Bak Monika Mierzwinski‐Urban Hayley Fitzsimmons Andra Morrison Michelle Maden‐Jenkins 《Health information and libraries journal》2009,26(3):211-219
Objective: To identify or develop a critical appraisal instrument (CAI) to aid in the selection of search filters for use in systematic review searching. The CAI is to be used by experienced searchers without specialized training in statistics or search filter design. Methods: Through extensive searching and consultation, one candidate instrument was identified. Through expert consultation and several rounds of testing, the instrument was extensively revised to become the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) CAI. Results: The CADTH CAI consists of ten questions and can be applied by experienced searchers with a moderate knowledge of search filter methodology. Conclusion: The CADTH CAI provides experienced searchers with a means of selecting the search filter that is most methodologically sound. 相似文献
6.
Background: Systematic review articles support the advance of science and translation of research evidence into healthcare practice. Inaccurate retrieval from medline could limit access to reviews. Objective: To determine the quality of indexing systematic reviews and meta‐analyses in medline . Methods: The Clinical Hedges Database, containing the results of a hand search of 161 journals, was used to test medline indexing terms for their ability to retrieve systematic reviews that met predefined methodologic criteria (labelled as ‘pass’ review articles) and reviews that reported a meta‐analysis. Results: The Clinical Hedges Database contained 49 028 articles; 753 were ‘pass’ review articles (552 with a meta‐analysis). In total 758 review articles (independent of whether they passed) reported a meta‐analysis. The search strategy that retrieved the highest number of ‘pass’ systematic reviews achieved a sensitivity of 97.1%. The publication type ‘meta analysis’ had a false positive rate of 5.6% (95% CI 3.9 to 7.6), and false negative rate of 0.31% (95% CI 0.26 to 0.36) for retrieving systematic reviews that reported a meta‐analysis. Conclusions: Inaccuracies in indexing systematic reviews and meta‐analyses in medline can be partly overcome by a 5‐term search strategy. Introducing a publication type for systematic reviews of the literature could improve retrieval performance. 相似文献
7.
Andrea L. Chapman Laura C. Morgan Gerald Gartlehner 《Health information and libraries journal》2010,27(1):22-27
Background: To minimise retrieval bias, manual literature searches are a key part of the search process of any systematic review. Considering the need to have accurate information, valid results of the manual literature search are essential to ensure scientific standards; likewise efficient approaches that minimise the amount of personnel time required to conduct a manual literature search are of great interest. Objective: The objective of this project was to determine the validity and efficiency of a new manual search method that utilises the scopus ? database. Methods: We used the traditional manual search approach as the gold standard to determine the validity and efficiency of the proposed scopus method. Outcome measures included completeness of article detection and personnel time involved. Using both methods independently, we compared the results based on accuracy of the results, validity and time spent conducting the search, efficiency. Results: Regarding accuracy, the scopus method identified the same studies as the traditional approach indicating its validity. In terms of efficiency, using scopus led to a time saving of 62.5% compared with the traditional approach (3 h versus 8 h). Conclusions: The scopus method can significantly improve the efficiency of manual searches and thus of systematic reviews. 相似文献
8.
Micah D. J. Peters 《Medical reference services quarterly》2017,36(1):19-31
This article describes a novel approach for using EndNote to manage and code references in the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and scoping reviews. The process is simple and easy for reviewers new to both EndNote and systematic reviews. This process allows reviewers to easily conduct and report systematic reviews in line with the internationally recognized PRISMA reporting guidelines and also facilitates the overall task of systematic or scoping review conduct and reporting from the initial search through to structuring the results, discussion, and conclusions in a rigorous, reproducible, and user-friendly manner. 相似文献
9.
[目的/意义]旨在分析协同搜索用户在信息搜索任务过程中的交流内容与模式,从而理解协同搜索用户的关注重点与搜索过程。[研究设计/方法]基于书籍交互检索平台(CLEF-Social Book Search)设计实验,共招募18名被试完成两种搜索任务,通过录音记录对话并对其进行编码和分析,总结交流内容特征和模式。结合任务类型、认知类型组合、服务器记录的搜索交互行为日志以及问卷收集的搜索体验进行了探索分析。[结论/发现]从交流内容上看,协同搜索用户主要理解与评判书目信息、商讨搜索任务计划;比起认知类型不同的用户,相同认知类型的用户在操作交互方面交流更多,在评判决策方面交流较少。交流模式依据讨论内容比重可分为理解评判型、评判主导型、均衡交流型三种,评判主导型用户的任务完成满意度最高。[创新/价值]协同搜索用户的交流反映出搜索过程中需要与同伴商讨协同的焦点,也是需要系统提供协助的重点,给协同搜索系统设计提供一定参考。本研究针对协同搜索的交流内容设计的编码系统对相关的协同交流研究也有借鉴意义。 相似文献
10.
Evaluating clinical librarian services: a systematic review 总被引：1，自引：1，他引：0
Brettle A Maden-Jenkins M Anderson L McNally R Pratchett T Tancock J Thornton D Webb A 《Health information and libraries journal》2011,28(1):3-22
Background: Previous systematic reviews have indicated limited evidence and poor quality evaluations of clinical librarian (CL) services. Rigorous evaluations should demonstrate the value of CL services, but guidance is needed before this can be achieved. Objectives: To undertake a systematic review which examines models of CL services, quality, methods and perspectives of clinical librarian service evaluations. Methods: Systematic review methodology and synthesis of evidence, undertaken collaboratively by a group of 8 librarians to develop research and critical appraisal skills. Results: There are four clear models of clinical library service provision. Clinical librarians are effective in saving health professionals time, providing relevant, useful information and high quality services. Clinical librarians have a positive effect on clinical decision making by contributing to better informed decisions, diagnosis and choice of drug or therapy. The quality of CL studies is improving, but more work is needed on reducing bias and providing evidence of specific impacts on patient care. The Critical Incident Technique as part of a mixed method approach appears to offer a useful approach to demonstrating impact. Conclusions: This systematic review provides practical guidance regarding the evaluation of CL services. It also provides updated evidence regarding the effectiveness and impact of CL services. The approach used was successful in developing research and critical appraisal skills in a group of librarians. 相似文献
11.
Background: The Australian National Stroke Foundation appointed a search specialist to find the best available evidence for the second edition of its Clinical Guidelines for Acute Stroke Management. Objective: To identify the relative effectiveness of differing evidence sources for the guideline update. Methods: We searched and reviewed references from five valid evidence sources for clinical and economic questions: (i) electronic databases; (ii) reference lists of relevant systematic reviews, guidelines, and/or primary studies; (iii) table of contents of a number of key journals for the last 6 months; (iv) internet/grey literature; and (v) experts. Reference sources were recorded, quantified, and analysed. Results: In the clinical portion of the guidelines document, there was a greater use of previous knowledge and sources other than electronic databases for evidence, while there was a greater use of electronic databases for the economic section. Conclusions: The results confirmed that searchers need to be aware of the context and range of sources for evidence searches. For best available evidence, searchers cannot rely solely on electronic databases and need to encompass many different media and sources. 相似文献
12.
While the role of the librarian as an expert searcher in the systematic review process is widely recognized, librarians also can be enlisted to help systematic review teams with other challenges. This article reviews the contributions of librarians to systematic reviews, including communicating methods of the review process, collaboratively formulating the research question and exclusion criteria, formulating the search strategy on a variety of databases, documenting the searches, record keeping, and writing the search methodology. It also discusses challenges encountered such as irregular timelines, providing education, communication, and learning new technologies for record keeping. Rewards include building relationships with researchers, expanding professional expertise, and receiving recognition for contributions to health care outcomes. 相似文献
13.
While the role of the librarian as an expert searcher in the systematic review process is widely recognized, librarians also can be enlisted to help systematic review teams with other challenges. This article reviews the contributions of librarians to systematic reviews, including communicating methods of the review process, collaboratively formulating the research question and exclusion criteria, formulating the search strategy on a variety of databases, documenting the searches, record keeping, and writing the search methodology. It also discusses challenges encountered such as irregular timelines, providing education, communication, and learning new technologies for record keeping. Rewards include building relationships with researchers, expanding professional expertise, and receiving recognition for contributions to health care outcomes. 相似文献
14.
[目的/意义]探究在协同与独立模式下完成信息搜索任务的过程中,用户在搜索体验、交互行为方面的差异,试图通过对比研究来理解协同信息搜索行为的特点,为协同搜索系统的设计提供借鉴。[方法/过程]基于图书交互式检索平台（CLEF-Social Book Search）进行实验,共招募16名独立被试和18名协同被试到实验室完成多种类型的书目搜索任务,对搜索前后问卷记录的搜索体验以及后台服务器记录的搜索过程交互行为进行对比分析。[结果/结论]搜索体验方面,协同搜索被试比独立搜索被试对实验系统的功能评价更好,对系统的美感、耐用性、新颖度评价更高,参与实验的专注度更高,但却感到更加费力;搜索行为方面,相比独立模式下的被试,协同模式下的被试在目标型任务中进行更多次决策,尤其是删除书目的决策,意味着协同搜索被试在搜索后期会进行更多的决策讨论和整理;在探索任务中,协同被试比独立被试的平均决策时间和首次决策时间都更长,可能是由于在探索任务中协同被试的参与度更高、讨论更多。 相似文献
15.
Ripple AS 《Medical reference services quarterly》2006,25(2):97-107
Google is the search engine of choice for most Internet users. For a variety of reasons, librarians and other expert searchers do not always use Google to its full potential, even though it provides capabilities not possible in traditional bibliographic databases and other search engines. Applying expert searching principles and practices, such as the use of advanced search operators, information retrieval strategies, and search hedges to Google will allow health sciences librarians to find quality information on the Internet more efficiently and effectively. 相似文献
16.
AIM: This paper explores the processes of collaboration between a librarian and two academic physiotherapists working on a systematic review jointly funded by the University of the West of England (UWE), Bristol, and the Royal National Hospital for Rheumatic Diseases (RNHRD), Bath, UK. The aim of this paper is to describe and evaluate some of the processes of collaboration between the three authors in their work in progress on a funded systematic literature review on the topic of hydrotherapy and pain. METHODS: The vehicle for describing and analysing these processes is a joint (National Health Service Trust and University) funded systematic literature review currently in progress on the topic of hydrotherapy and pain. RESULTS: Systematic review methodology is becoming increasingly complex and is rapidly developing its own research base. Librarian input is a key element in a successful systematic review. CONCLUSIONS: Systematic reviews play a critical role in informing healthcare delivery and research in the UK. The individual nature and inherent complexity of each review demands close collaboration between librarians, academics and clinicians. In addition to enhancing the reviews themselves, there are many other personal and institutional benefits of collaborative working. Consideration may need to be given to library staff structures and roles if these benefits are to be maximized and sustained. 相似文献
17.
Marisa L. Conte Mark P. MacEachern Nandita S. Mani Whitney A. Townsend Judith E. Smith Chase Masters Caitlin Kelley 《Journal of the Medical Library Association》2015,103(2):69-73
Objective:The researchers used the flipped classroom model to develop and conduct a systematic review course for librarians.Setting:The research took place at an academic health sciences library.Method:A team of informationists developed and conducted a pilot course. Assessment informed changes to both course components; a second course addressed gaps in the pilot.Conclusion:The flipped classroom model can be successful in developing and implementing a course that is well rated by students. 相似文献
18.
Nena Schvaneveldt Elizabeth M. Stellrecht 《Journal of the Medical Library Association》2021,109(1):52
Objective:The objective of this study was to determine the scope of experience, roles, and challenges that librarians face in participating in dental and oral health systematic and scoping reviews to inform outreach efforts to researchers and identify areas for librarian professional development.Methods:The authors developed a twenty-three-item survey based on the findings of two recent articles about health sciences librarians'' roles and challenges in conducting systematic and scoping reviews. The survey was distributed via electronic mailing lists to librarians who were likely to have participated in conducting dental systematic and scoping reviews.Results:While survey respondents reported participating in many dental reviews, they participated more commonly in systematic reviews than in scoping reviews. Also, they worked less commonly on dental and oral health reviews than on non-dental reviews. Librarian roles in dental reviews tended to follow traditional librarian roles: all respondents had participated in planning and information retrieval stages, whereas fewer respondents had participated in screening and assessing articles. The most frequently reported challenges involved the lead reviewer or review team rather than the librarians themselves, with time- and methodology-related challenges being most common.Conclusions:Although librarians might not be highly involved in dental and oral health systematic and scoping reviews, more librarian participation in these reviews, either as methodologists or information experts, may improve their reviews'' overall quality. 相似文献
19.
专家知识在知识检索系统中有着强大的指导功用.本文将专家系统引入到知识检索系统中,通过设置具有不同功能及应用范围的系列专家系统,构建了基于专家系统的知识检索框架. 相似文献