Las revisiones sistemáticas en Biblioteconomía y Documentaciónanálisis y evaluación del proceso de búsqueda

  1. Salvador-Oliván, José Antonio
  2. Marco-Cuenca, Gonzalo
  3. Arquero-Avilés, Rosario
Aldizkaria:
Revista española de documentación científica

ISSN: 0210-0614,  1988-4621

Argitalpen urtea: 2018

Alea: 41

Zenbakia: 2

Mota: Artikulua

DOI: 10.3989/REDC.2018.2.1491 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openSarbide irekia editor

Beste argitalpen batzuk: Revista española de documentación científica

Garapen Iraunkorreko Helburuak

Laburpena

El objetivo principal de este estudio es evaluar si las revisiones sistemáticas en Biblioteconomía y Documentación (ByD) proporcionan información completa sobre todos los elementos que conforman el proceso de búsqueda. Se identificaron revisiones de las bases de datos Web of Science, Scopus, LISTA, Library Science Database, Medline y de una wiki, publicadas desde el 2000 hasta febrero de 2017, que tuvieran en el título los términos “revisiones sistemáticas” y/o “metaanálisis”. Se creó una lista con 12 elementos recomendados de las principales guías de publicación para valorar el grado de información sobre cada uno de ellos. La mayoría de las revisiones en ByD son creadas por profesionales de la información, que informan de manera deficiente del método de búsqueda, ya que de las 94 revisiones finalmente seleccionadas, solo el 4,3% incluían todos los elementos de la búsqueda, siendo el nombre de la base de datos el más frecuente (95,6%) y el menos la plataforma (35,8%). Es necesario mejorar y completar la información del proceso de búsqueda si se desea reproducir o actualizar la revisión y evaluar su calidad.

Erreferentzia bibliografikoak

  • Ankem, K. (2008). Evaluation of method in systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in LIS. Library and Information Research, 32 (101), 91–104.
  • Boeker, M.; Vach, W.; Motschall, E. (2013). Google Scholar as replacement for systematic literature searches: good relative recall and precision are not enough. BMC Medical Research Methodolology, 13 (131). https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-13-131 PMid:24160679 PMCid:PMC3840556
  • Catalano, A. (2013). Patterns of graduate student's information seeking behavior: A meta-synthesis of the literature. Journal of Documentation, 69 (2), 243-274. https://doi.org/10.1108/00220411311300066
  • Cooper, I.D.; Crum, J.A. (2013). New activities and changing roles of health science librarians: a systematic review, 1990-2012. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 101 (4), 268-277. https://doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.101.4.008 PMid:24163598 PMCid:PMC3794682
  • Counsell, C. (1997). Formulating questions and locating primary studies for inclusion in systematic reviews. Annals of Internal Medicine, 127 (5), 380-387. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-127-5-199709010-00008
  • DeLuca, J.M. (2008). Developing a comprehensive search strategy for evidence based systematic reviews. Evidence based Library and Information Practice, 3 (1), 3-32. https://doi.org/10.18438/B8KP66
  • Dudden, R.F.; Protzko, S.L. (2011). The systematic review team: contributions of the health sciences librarian. Medical Reference Services Quarterly, 30 (3), 301–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/02763869.2011.590425 PMid:21800987
  • Foster, M.J. (2015). An overview of the role of librarians in systematic reviews: from expert search to project manager. Journal of EAHIL, 11 (3), 3-7.
  • Godin, K.; Stapleton, J.; Kirkpatrick, S.I.; Hanning, R.M.; Leatherdale, S.T. (2015). Applying systematic review search methods to the grey literature: a case study examining guidelines for school-based breakfast programs in Canada. Systematic Reviews, 4, 138. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-015-0125-0 PMid:26494010 PMCid:PMC4619264
  • Golder, S.; Loke, Y.; McIntosh, H.M. (2008). Poor reporting and inadequate searches were apparent in systematic reviews of adverse effects. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 61 (5), 440-448. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.06.005 PMid:18394536
  • Golder, S.; Loke, Y.K.; Zorzela, L. (2014). Comparison of search strategies in systematic reviews of adverse effects to other systematic reviews. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 31 (2), 92–105. https://doi.org/10.1111/hir.12041 PMid:24754741
  • Greenhalgh, T.; Peacock, R. (2005). Effectiveness and efficiency of search methods in systematic reviews of complex evidence: audit of primary sources. British Medical Journal, 331, 1064-1065. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.38636.593461.68 PMid:16230312 PMCid:PMC1283190
  • Harris, M.R. (2005). The librarian's roles in the systematic review process: a case study. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 93 (1), 81-87. PMid:15685279 PMCid:PMC545126
  • Higgins, J.P.T.; Green, S. (eds.). (2011). Manual Cochrane de revisiones sistemáticas de intervenciones Version 5.1.0. [actualizado marzo 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration. Disponible en: http://handbook. cochrane.org [fecha de consulta: 10 de febrero de 2017].
  • IOM (Institute of Medicine). (2011). Finding what works in healthcare: standards for systematic reviews. Washington: The National Academies Press, 340 p.
  • Jadad, A.R.; Moher, D.; Klassen, T.P. (1998). Guides for reading and interpreting systematic reviews. II. How did authors find the studies and assess their quality?. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 152 (8), 812-817. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpedi.152.8.812
  • Klassen, T.P.; Jadad, A.R.; Moher, D. (1998). Guides for reading and interpreting systematic reviews. I. Getting started. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 152 (7), 700-704. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpedi.152.7.700
  • Koffel, J.B.; Rethlefsen, M.L. (2016). Reproducibility of search strategies is poor in systematic reviews published in high-impact pediatrics, cardiology and surgery journals: A cross-sectional study. PLoS ONE, 11 (9), e0163309. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0163309 PMid:27669416 PMCid:PMC5036875
  • Koffel, J.B. (2015). Use of recommended search strategies in systematic reviews and the impact of librarian involvement: a cross-sectional survey of recent authors. PLoS ONE, 10 (5), e0125931. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0125931 PMid:25938454 PMCid:PMC4418838
  • Koufogiannakis, D. (2012a). The state of systematic reviews in Library and Information Studies. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 7 (2), 91-95. https://doi.org/10.18438/B8Q021
  • Koufogiannakis, D. (2012b). LIS Systematic Reviews. [Última fecha de actualización, 21 de junio de 2015]. Disponible en: http://lis-systematic-reviews. wikispaces.com/ [Fecha de consulta: 28 de febrero de 2017].
  • Layton, D. (2017). A critical review of search strategies used in recent systematic reviews published in selected prosthodontic and implant-related journals: Are systematic reviews actually systematic?. International Journal of Prosthodontics, 30 (1), 13-21. https://doi.org/10.11607/ijp.5193 PMid:28085971
  • Lefebvre, C.; Manheimer, E; Glanville, J. (2011). Capítulo 6: La búsqueda de estudios. En: Higgins, J.P.T.; Green, S. (eds.). Manual Cochrane de revisiones sistemáticas de intervenciones Version 5.1.0 [actualizado marzo 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration. Disponible en http://handbook.cochrane.org
  • Li, L.; Tian, J.; Tian, H.; Moher, D.; Liang, F.; Jiang, T.; Yao, L.; Yang, K. (2014). Network meta-analyses could be improved by searching more sources and by involving a librarian. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 67 (9), 1001–1007. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.04.003 PMid:24841794
  • Liberati, A.; Altman, D.G.; Tetzlaff, J; Mulrow, C.; Gøtzsche, P.C.; Ioannidis, J.P.A.; Clarke, M.; Deveraux, P.J.; Kleijnen, J.; Moher, D. (2009) The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med, 6 (7), e1000100. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000100 PMid:19621070 PMCid:PMC2707010
  • Maden, M; Kotas, L. (2016). Evaluating approaches to quality assessment in Library and Information Science LIS systematic reviews: A methodology review. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 11 (2), 149-176. https://doi.org/10.18438/B8F630
  • Maggio, L. A.; Tannery, N.H.; Kanter, S.L. (2011). Reproducibility of literature search reporting in medical education reviews. Academic Medicine, 86 (8), 1049– 1054. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e31822221e7 PMid:21694568
  • Mahood, Q.; Eerd, D.V.; Irvin, E. (2014). Searching for grey literature for systematic reviews: Challenges and benefits. Research Synthesis Methods, 5 (3), 221-234. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1106 PMid:26052848
  • McGowan, J. (2001). For expert literature searching, call a librarian. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 165 (10), 1301-1302. PMid:11760973 PMCid:PMC81618
  • McGowan, J.; Sampson, M. (2005). Systematic reviews need systematic searchers. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 93 (1), 74-80. PMid:15685278 PMCid:PMC545125
  • McGowan, J.; Sampson, M.; Salzwedel, D.M.; Cogo, E.; Foerster, V.; Lefevre, C. (2016). PRESS Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies: 2015 Guideline Statement. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 75, 40- 46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.01.021 PMid:27005575
  • McKibbon, K.A. (2006). Systematic reviews and librarians. Library Trends, 55 (1), 202-215. https://doi.org/10.1353/lib.2006.0049
  • Meert, D.; Torabi, N.; Costella, J. (2016). Impact of librarians on reporting of the literature searching component of pediatric systematic reviews. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 104 (4), 267-277. https://doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.104.4.004 PMid:27822147 PMCid:PMC5079487
  • Moher, D.; Cook, D.J.; Eastwood, S.; Olkin, I.; Rennie, D.; Stroup, D.E. (1999). Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: The QUOROM statement. Lancet, 354 (9193), 1896-1900. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(99)04149-5
  • Moher, D.; Liberati, A.; Tetzlaff, J.; Altman, D.G.; The PRISMA Group (2009). Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Medicine, 6 (7), e1000097. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097 PMid:19621072 PMCid:PMC2707599
  • Mullins, M.M; DeLuca, J.B.; Crepaz, N.; Lyles, C.M. (2014). Reporting quality of search methods in systematic reviews of HIV behavioral interventions (2000-2010): are the searches clearly explained, systematic and reproducible?. Research Synthesis Methods, 5 (2), 116-130. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1098 PMid:26052651 PMCid:PMC5861495
  • Nissen, T.; Wayant, C.; Wahlstrom, A.; Sinnett, P.; Fugate, C.; Herrington, J.; Vassar, M. (2017). Methodological quality, completeness of reporting and use of systematic reviews as evidence in clinical practice guidelines for paediatric overweight and obesity. Clinical Obesity, 7 (1), 34-45. https://doi.org/10.1111/cob.12174 PMid:28112500
  • Phelps S.F; Campbell N. (2012). Systematic reviews in theory and practice for library and information studies. Library and Information Research, 36 (112), 6-15.
  • Rader, T.; Mann, M.; Stansfield, C.; Cooper, C.; Sampson, M. (2014). Methods for documenting systematic review searches: a discussion of commons issues. Research Synthesis Methods, 5 (2), 98-115. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1097 PMid:26052650
  • Rethlefsen, M.L.; Farrell, A.M.; Trzasko, L.C.O; Brigham, T.J. (2015). Librarian co-authors correlated with higher quality reported search strategies in general internal medicine systematic reviews. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 68 (6), 617-626. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.11.025 PMid:25766056
  • Rethlefsen, M.L.; Murad, M.H.; Livingston, E.H. (2014). Engaging medical librarians to improve the quality of review articles. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 312 (10), 999-1000. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2014.9263
  • Sampson, M.; McGowan, J.; Tetzlaff, J.; Cogo, E.; Moher, D. (2008). No consensus exists on search reporting methods for systematic reviews. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 61 (8), 748-754. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.10.009 PMid:18586178
  • Shea, B.J,; Grimshaw, J.M.; Wells, G.A.; Boers, M.; Anderson, N.; Hamel, C; Porter, A.C.; Tugwell, P.; Moher, D.; Bouter, L.M. (2007). Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 7, 10. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-7-10 PMid:17302989 PMCid:PMC1810543
  • Stansfield, C.; Dickson, K.; Bangpan, M. (2016). Exploring issues in the conduct of website searching and other online sources for systematic reviews: how can we be systematic?. Systematic Reviews, 5 (1), 191. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0371-9 PMid:27846867 PMCid:PMC5111285
  • Tannery, N.H.; Maggio, LA. (2012). The role of medical librarians in medical education review articles. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 100 (2), 142-4. https://doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.100.2.015 PMid:22514513 PMCid:PMC3324803
  • Urquhart, C. (2010). Systematic reviewing, meta-analysis and meta-synthesis for evidence-based library and information science. Information Research, 15 (3), colis708. http://InformationR.net/ir/15-3/colis7/colis708. html [Fecha de consulta: 16 de marzo de 2017]
  • Xu, J.; Kang, Q.; Song, Z. (2015). The current state of systematic reviews in library and information studies. Library & Information Science Research, 37 (4), 296– 310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2015.11.003
  • Yoshii, A.; Plault, D.A.; McGraw, K.A.; Anderson, M.J.; Wellik, K.E. (2009). Analysis of the reporting of search strategies in Cochrane systematic reviews. Journal of Medial Library Association, 97 (1), 21-29. https://doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.97.1.004 PMid:19158999 PMCid:PMC2605027
  • Zorzela, L.; Golder, S.; Liu, Y. (2014). Quality of reporting in systematic reviews of adverse events: systematic review. British Medical Journal, 348: f7668. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f7668 PMid:24401468 PMCid:PMC3898583
Datuen iturria: Dialnet