La reproducibilidad de las estrategias de búsqueda en revisiones sistemáticas publicadas en revistas españolas de Biblioteconomía y Documentación

  1. Salvador Oliván, José Antonio 1
  2. Marco Cuenca, Gonzalo 1
  3. Arquero Avilés, Rosario 2
  1. 1 Universidad de Zaragoza
    info

    Universidad de Zaragoza

    Zaragoza, España

    ROR https://ror.org/012a91z28

  2. 2 Universidad Complutense de Madrid
    info

    Universidad Complutense de Madrid

    Madrid, España

    ROR 02p0gd045

Journal:
Ibersid: revista de sistemas de información y documentación = journal of information and documentation systems

ISSN: 1888-0967

Year of publication: 2023

Volume: 17

Issue: 1

Pages: 129-137

Type: Article

DOI: 10.54886/IBERSID.V17I1.4892 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openOpen access editor

More publications in: Ibersid: revista de sistemas de información y documentación = journal of information and documentation systems

Sustainable development goals

Abstract

The complete and detailed reporting of the search process in systematic reviews is vital for their reproducibility and to evaluate the rigor and reliability of the results. The main objective of this study is to evaluate the transparency and reproducibility of search strategies in systematic reviews published in spanish Library and Information Science journals. For this purpose, the databases Web of Science and Scopus were searched for articles published in these journals identified as systematic or systematized literature reviews. Thirty-five reviews were finally selected and the presence of elements related to the search for information recommended in the PRISMA-S guide was evaluated: complete search strategy, keywords and search terms, time period searched, number of studies retrieved, names of databases searched and limits or filters applied. There are a very deficient reporting of the elements related to the search for information. The majority of the reviews do not provide a complete search strategy and 25 % do not provide keywords either, with the name of the databases searched being the most frequently described element (91,4 %). No differences were found in the information provided in the reviews published by librarians or information professionals and those from other disciplines. Authors using the term systematic or systematized review should describe in a transparent and rigorous manner all the elements essential for its reproducibility and evaluation.

Bibliographic References

  • Aamodt, Mikaela; Huurdeman, Hugo; Stromme, Hilde (2019). Librarian Co-Authored Systematic Reviews are Associated with Lower Risk of Bias Compared to Systematic Reviews with Acknowledgement of Librarians or No Participation by Librarians. // Evidence Based Library and Information Practice. 14:4, 103-127.
  • Aromataris, Edoardo; Munn, Zachary (2020). JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. JBI, 2020. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.46658/JBIMES-20-02
  • Beverley, Catherine; Booth, Andrew; Bath, Peter. (2003). The role of the information specialist in the systematic review process: a health information case study. // Health Information and Libraries Journal. 20:2, 65-74.
  • Boice, Jocelyn (2019). An exploration of systematic review publication trends in conservation biology journals. // Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship.
  • Booth, Andrew; Sutton, Anthea; Papaioannou, Diana (2016). Systematic approaches to a successful literature review. London. SAGE, 2016.
  • Chaabna, Karima; Cheema, Sohaila; Abraham, Amit; Mantani, Ravinder (2020). Strengthening literature search strategies for systematic reviews reporting population health in the Middle East and North Africa: A meta-research study. // Evidence Based Medicine. 13:3, 192-198.
  • Chapman, Karen (2021). Characteristics of systematic reviews in the social sciences. // The Journal of Academic Librarianship. 47:102396.
  • Eldredge, Jonathan (2000). Evidence-based librarianship: an overview. Evidence-based librarianship: an overview. // Bulletin of the Medical Library Association. 88:4, 289-302.
  • Faggion, Clovis Mariano; Huivin, Raquel; Aranda, Luisiana; Pandis, Nikolaos; Alarcón, Marco (2018). The search and selection for primary studies in systematic reviews published in dental journals indexed in MEDLINE was not fully reproducible. // Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 98: 53-61.
  • Gore, Genevieve; Jones, Julie (2015). Systematic Reviews and Librarians: A Primer for Managers. // Partnership: The Canadian Journal of Library and Information Practice and Research. 10:1.
  • Grant, María J.; Booth, Andrew (2009). A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. // Health Information and Libraries Journal. 26: 91–108.
  • Higgins, Julian; Thomas, James; Chandler, Jacqueline; Cumpston, Miranda; Li, Tianjing; Page, Mathew; Welch, Vivian (editors) (2022). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.3 (actualizado Febrero 2022). Cochanre, 2022. www.training.cochrane.org/handbook.
  • Koffel, Jonathan (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.
  • Koufogiannakis, Denise (2012). The state of systematic reviews in Library and Information Studies.// Evidence Based Library and Information Practice. 7:2, 91–95
  • Lefebvre, Carol; Glanville, Julie; Briscoe, Simon; Featherstone, Robin; Littlewood, Anne ; Marshall, Chris; Metzendorf, Maria-Inti; Noel-Storr, Anna; Paynter, Robin; Rader, Tamara; Thomas, James; Wieland, Susan (2022). Capítulo 4: searching for and selecting studies. // Higgins, Julian; Thomas, James; Chandler, Jacqueline; Cumpston, Miranda; Li, Tiamjing; Page, Mathew; Welch, Vivian (editores). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.3 (actualizado Febrero 2022). Cochrane, 2022. www.training.cochrane.org/handbook.
  • Logan, Judith (2023). Why do researchers co-author evidence syntheses with librarians? A mixed-methods study. // Research Synthesis Methods (2023 Feb 20). https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1629.
  • MacFarlane, Andrew; Russell-Rose, Tony; Shokranek, Farhad (2022). Search strategy formulation for systematic reviews: Issues, challenges and opportunities. // Intelligent Systems woth Applications. 15: 200091.
  • Maden, Michelle; Kotas, Eleanor (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.
  • McGowan, Jessie; Sampson, Margaret (2005). Systematic reviews need systematic searchers. // Journal of the Medical Library Association. 93:1, 74-80.
  • McGowan, Jessie; Sampson, Margaret; Salzwedel, Douglas M.; Cogo, Elise; Foerster, Vicki; Lefevre, Carol (2016). PRESS Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies: 2015 Guideline Statement. // Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 75: 40-46.
  • Moher, David; Liberati, Alessaandro;Tetzlaff, Jennifer; Altman, Douglas; PRISMA Group (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. // British Medical Journal. 339: b2535.
  • Page, Mathew J; Shamseer, Larissa; Altman, Douglas G; Tetzlaff, Jennifer; Sampson, Margaret; Tricco, Andrea C; Catalá-López, Ferrán; Li, Lun; Reid, Emma K; Sarkis-Onofre, Rafael; Moher, David (2016). Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews of biomedical research: a cross-sectional study. // PLoS Medicine. 13:5,e1002028.
  • Page, Mathew J; McKenzie, Joanne E; Bossuyt, Patrick M; Boutron, Isabelle; Hoffmann, Tammy C; Mulrow, Cynhia D; Shamseer, Larissa; Tetzlaff, Jennifer M; Akl, Elie A; Brennan, Sue E; Chou, Roger; Glanville, Julie; Grimshaw, Jeremy M; Hróbjartsson, Asbjørn; Lalu, Manoj L; Li, Tianjing; Loder, Elizabeth W;Mayo-Wilson, Evan; McDonald, Steve; McGuinness, Luke; Stewart, Lesley A; Thomas, James; Tricco, Andrea; Welch, Vivian a; Whiting, Penny; Moher, David (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. // British Medical Journal. 372:71.
  • Ramírez, Diana; Foster, Margaret J; Kogut, Ashlynn; Xiaon, Daniel (2022). Adherence to systematic review standards: Impact of librarian involvement in Campbell Collaboration's education reviews. // The Journal of Academic Librarianship. 48:5, 102567.
  • Rethlefsen, Melissa; Farrell, Ann; Trzasko, Leah C Osterhaus; Brigham, Tara (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.
  • Rethlefsen, Melissa L.; Kirtley, Shona.; Waffenschmidt, Siw; Ayala, Ana Patricia; Moher, David; Page, Mathew J.; Koffel, Jonathan B.; PRISMA-S Group (2021a). PRISMA-S: an extension to the PRISMA Statement for Reporting Literature Searches in Systematic Reviews. // Journal of the Medical Library Association. 109:2, 174-200.
  • Rethlefsen, Melissa L.; Schroter, Sara; Bouter, Lex M; Moher, David; Ayala, Ana Patricia; Kirkham, Jamie J; Zeegers, Maurice P. (2021b). Improving peer review of systematic reviews by involving librarians and information specialists: protocol for a randomized controlled trial. // Trials. 22:1, 791.
  • Riegelman, Amy; Kocher, Megan. (2018). A model for developing and implementing a systematic review service for disciplines outside of the health sciences. // Reference & User Services Quarterly. 58:1, 22–27.
  • Ross-White, Amanda (2021). An environmental scan of librarian involvement in systematic reviews at Queen's University: 2020 update. // Journal of the Canadian Health Libraries Association. 42:2, 110-117.
  • Sadeghi-Ghyassi, Fatemeh; Gavgani, Vahideh Zarea; Fathifar, Zahra; Makani, Nasrin; Vaez, Reyhaneh; Montazeri, Maryam (2022). Quality of reporting of literature search strategies in systematic reviews published on the role of telehealth during COVID-19. // Journal of Information Science. (Abril de 2022). https://doi.org/10.1177/01655515221087649
  • Salvador-Oliván, José Antonio; Marco-Cuenca, Gonzalo; Arquero-Avilés, Rosario (2018). Las revisiones sistemáticas en Biblioteconomía y Documentación: análisis y evaluación del proceso de búsqueda. // Revista Española de Documentación Científica. 41:2, e207.
  • Schellinger, Jana; Sewell, Kerry; Bloss, Jamie E; Ebron, Tristan; Forbes, Carrie (2021). The effect of librarian involvement on the quality of systematic reviews in dental medicine. // Plos One. 16:9, e0256833.
  • The Campbell Collaboration (2019). Campbell systematic reviews: policies and guidelines Campbell Policies and Guidelines Series No. 1. https://doi.org/10.4073/cpg.2016.1
  • Xu, Jianhua; Kang, Qi; Song, Zhiqiang (2015). The current state of systematic reviews in library and information studies. // Library and Information Science Research. 37:4, 296-31.
Data source: Dialnet