An Analysis of Local Systematic Reviews: A Mixed Methods Study

Objectives: This study updates a 2015 project that collected baseline data measuring a university’s systematic review output and librarian contributions to published reviews. By comparing 2019 data to the initial results, librarians will assess changes in the quality of the university’s systematic reviews by measuring adherence to reporting guidelines and authors’ knowledge of best practices.

Methods: A team of librarians at an academic health sciences library serving schools of dentistry, medicine, nursing, pharmacy and social work analyzed systematic reviews (SRs) authored by faculty and researchers at the university. In February 2019, librarians searched the Scopus database to identify systematic reviews published since 2015. The team identified 580 potentially relevant papers, of which 112 were identified as true systematic reviews and met all predetermined eligibility criteria (adapted from Rethlefsen et al. 2015). Reviews were then screened to determine the extent of librarian involvement, as well as adherence to PRISMA guidelines for reporting search methods. Data were compared to the 119 reviews identified during the 2015 project. In October 2019, librarians surveyed corresponding authors of the identified systematic reviews to determine their knowledge of SR guidelines, methods for identifying studies for inclusion, and the extent of librarian involvement.

Results: Preliminary analysis of Scopus data shows evidence of increased adherence to PRISMA guidelines and a significant increase in librarian authorship on systematic reviews. Additional analysis is in progress and results of the survey are forthcoming.

Conclusions: More authors are adhering to PRISMA standards. We note an increase in librarian involvement, including authorship, in systematic reviews, though librarian authorship remains low.