Librarian co-authors correlated with higher quality reported search strategies in general internal medicine systematic reviews.

OBJECTIVES To determine whether librarian and information specialist authorship was associated with better reported systematic review (SR) search quality. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING SRs from high-impact general internal medicine journals were reviewed for search quality characteristics and reporting quality by independent reviewers using three instruments, including a checklist of Institute of Medicine Recommended Standards for the Search Process and a scored modification of the Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies instrument. RESULTS The level of librarian and information specialist participation was significantly associated with search reproducibility from reported search strategies (Χ(2) = 23.5; P < 0.0001). Librarian co-authored SRs had significantly higher odds of meeting 8 of 13 analyzed search standards than those with no librarian participation and six more than those with mentioned librarian participation. One-way ANOVA showed that differences in total search quality scores between all three groups were statistically significant (F2,267 = 10.1233; P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION Problems remain with SR search quality and reporting. SRs with librarian or information specialist co-authors are correlated with significantly higher quality reported search strategies. To minimize bias in SRs, authors and editors could encourage librarian engagement in SRs including authorship as a potential way to help improve documentation of the search strategy.

[1]  Kaisra Esmail,et al.  Association of study quality with completeness of reporting: have completeness of reporting and quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in major radiology journals changed since publication of the PRISMA statement? , 2013, Radiology.

[2]  Su Golder,et al.  Comparison of search strategies in systematic reviews of adverse effects to other systematic reviews. , 2014, Health information and libraries journal.

[3]  A. Weller,et al.  Mounting evidence that librarians are essential for comprehensive literature searches for meta-analyses and Cochrane reports. , 2004, Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA.

[4]  Peter R. Nelson,et al.  The Analysis of Means: A Graphical Method for Comparing Means, Rates, and Proportions , 1987 .

[5]  Li Zhang,et al.  Reporting of the Role of the Expert Searcher in Cochrane Reviews , 2006 .

[6]  David Moher,et al.  Network meta-analyses could be improved by searching more sources and by involving a librarian. , 2014, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[7]  P. Major,et al.  Search and selection methodology of systematic reviews in orthodontics (2000-2004). , 2006, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[8]  D. Moher,et al.  Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement , 2009, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[9]  I. Olkin,et al.  Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology - A proposal for reporting , 2000 .

[10]  Christine Urquhart,et al.  Precision of healthcare systematic review searches in a cross‐sectional sample , 2011, Research synthesis methods.

[11]  Jenny Craven,et al.  Recording Database Searches for Systematic Reviews - What is the Value of Adding a Narrative to Peer-Review Checklists? A Case Study of NICE Interventional Procedures Guidance , 2011 .

[12]  David Moher,et al.  No consensus exists on search reporting methods for systematic reviews. , 2008, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[13]  Falk Scholer,et al.  Boolean versus ranked querying for biomedical systematic reviews , 2010, BMC Medical Informatics Decis. Mak..

[14]  Su Golder,et al.  Some improvements are apparent in identifying adverse effects in systematic reviews from 1994 to 2011. , 2013, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[15]  David Moher,et al.  Epidemiology and Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews , 2007, PLoS medicine.

[16]  R. Haynes,et al.  Optimal search strategies for retrieving systematic reviews from Medline: analytical survey , 2004, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[17]  David Moher,et al.  An evidence-based practice guideline for the peer review of electronic search strategies. , 2009, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[18]  P. Major,et al.  An evaluation of search and selection methods used in dental systematic reviews published in English. , 2006, Journal of the American Dental Association.

[19]  I. Olkin,et al.  Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement , 1999, The Lancet.

[20]  Adriana Yoshii,et al.  Analysis of the reporting of search strategies in Cochrane systematic reviews. , 2009, Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA.

[21]  D. Moher,et al.  EPC Response to IOM Standards for Systematic Reviews , 2013 .

[22]  K. Shojania,et al.  Taking advantage of the explosion of systematic reviews: an efficient MEDLINE search strategy. , 2001, Effective clinical practice : ECP.

[23]  Laura A. Levit,et al.  Finding what works in health care : standards for systematic reviews , 2011 .

[24]  Dean Giustini,et al.  The comparative recall of Google Scholar versus PubMed in identical searches for biomedical systematic reviews: a review of searches used in systematic reviews , 2013, Systematic Reviews.

[25]  S. Golder,et al.  Poor reporting and inadequate searches were apparent in systematic reviews of adverse effects. , 2008, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[26]  R Brian Haynes,et al.  BMC Medicine BioMed Central , 2003 .

[27]  T. Greenhalgh,et al.  Effectiveness and efficiency of search methods in systematic reviews of complex evidence: audit of primary sources , 2005, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[28]  P. Tugwell,et al.  Scope for improvement in the quality of reporting of systematic reviews. From the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group. , 2006, The Journal of rheumatology.

[29]  H. Bastian,et al.  Seventy-Five Trials and Eleven Systematic Reviews a Day: How Will We Ever Keep Up? , 2010, PLoS medicine.

[30]  Julie Glanville,et al.  Methodological developments in searching for studies for systematic reviews: past, present and future? , 2013, Systematic Reviews.

[31]  C. Faggion,et al.  Search strategies in systematic reviews in periodontology and implant dentistry. , 2013, Journal of clinical periodontology.

[32]  D Fitzgerald,et al.  How good are clinical MEDLINE searches? A comparative study of clinical end-user and librarian searches. , 1990, Computers and biomedical research, an international journal.

[33]  J. McGowan,et al.  Errors in search strategies were identified by type and frequency. , 2006, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[34]  D. Moher,et al.  Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement , 2009, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[35]  Laura A. Levit,et al.  COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS FOR SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS OF COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS RESEARCH , 2011 .

[36]  J. McGowan,et al.  Systematic reviews need systematic searchers. , 2005, Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA.

[37]  David Moher,et al.  Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews , 2007, BMC medical research methodology.

[38]  Thomas Kaiser,et al.  Routine development of objectively derived search strategies , 2012, Systematic Reviews.

[39]  Nancy H Tannery,et al.  Reproducibility of Literature Search Reporting in Medical Education Reviews , 2011, Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges.

[40]  Melissa L Rethlefsen,et al.  Engaging medical librarians to improve the quality of review articles. , 2014, JAMA.

[41]  Joyce A. Mitchell,et al.  Evidence-based retrieval in evidence-based medicine. , 2004, Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA.

[42]  Robin A. Paynter,et al.  Peer Review of Search Strategies , 2012 .

[43]  G. Bartley,et al.  Publishing systematic reviews in ophthalmology: new guidance for authors. , 2014, Ophthalmology.

[44]  Klaus Krippendorff,et al.  Answering the Call for a Standard Reliability Measure for Coding Data , 2007 .

[45]  F. Boop,et al.  Methodology and reporting of meta-analyses in the neurosurgical literature. , 2014, Journal of neurosurgery.