Why equating all evidence searches to systematic reviews defies their role in information seeking

Zachary E. Fox, Annette M. Williams, Mallory N. Blasingame, Taneya Y. Koonce, Sheila V. Kusnoor, Jing Su, Patricia Lee, Marcia I. Epelbaum, Helen M. Naylor, Spencer J. DesAutels, Elizabeth T. Frakes, Nunzia Bettinsoli Giuse

Abstract


All too often the quality and rigor of topic investigations is inaccurately conveyed to information professionals, resulting in a mischaracterization of the research, which, if left unchecked and published, may in turn mislead potential readers. Accurately understanding and categorizing the types of topic investigation searches that are requested of information professionals is critical to both meeting requestors’ needs and reflecting their intended methodological approaches. Information professionals’ expertise can be an invaluable resource to guide users through the investigative and publication process.

Keywords


Systematic Reviews; Evidence; Information Needs

Full Text:

PDF HTML

References


Howick J, Chalmers I, Glasziou P, Greenhalgh T, Heneghan C, Liberati A, Moschetti I, Phillips B, Thornton H, Goddard O, Hodgkinson M; Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Levels of Evidence Working Group. The Oxford levels of evidence 2 [Internet]. Oxford, UK: The Centre; 2011 [cited 21 Mar 2019]. .

Ioannidis JPA. The mass production of redundant, misleading, and conflicted systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Milbank Q. 2016 Sep;94(3):485–514. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1468-0009.12210.

National Library of Medicine. Support for systematic reviews. NLM Tech Bull. 2019 Mar–Apr(427):b6.

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG; PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009 Aug 18;151(4):264–9.

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Methods guide for effectiveness and comparative effectiveness reviews. Rockville, MD: The Agency; 2014. AHRQ publication no. 10(14)-EHC063-EF.

Higgins JPT, Green S, ed. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions [Internet]. London, UK: Cochrane Collaboration; 2011 [rev. Mar 2011; cited 21 Mar 2019]. .

Institute of Medicine. Finding what works in health care: standards for systematic reviews. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2011. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17226/13059.

Page MJ, Moher D. Mass production of systematic reviews and meta-analyses: an exercise in mega-silliness? Milbank Q. 2016 Sep;94(3):515–9. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1468-0009.12211.

Center for Reviews and Dissemination. Systematic reviews. York, UK: The Center, University of York; 2009.

Giuse, Nunzia B. (Center for Knowledge Management, Strategy & Innovation, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN). Conversation with: Zachary Fox (Center for Knowledge Management, Strategy & Innovation, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN). 2018 Sep 13.

Hartling L, Guise JM, Kato E, Anderson J, Aronson N, Belinson S, Berliner E, Dryden D, Featherstone R, Foisy M, Mitchell M, Motu'apuaka M, Noorani H, Paynter R, Robinson KA, Schoelles K, Umscheid CA, Whitlock E. EPC methods: an exploration of methods and context for the production of rapid reviews [Internet]. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2015 Feb [cited 21 Mar 2019]. .

Patnode CD, Eder ML, Walsh ES, Viswanathan M, Lin JS. The use of rapid review methods for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Am J Prev Med. 2018 Jan;54(1S1):S19–S25. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2017.07.024.

Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group. Cochrane rapid reviews [Internet]. London, UK: Cochrane Collaboration [cited 21 Mar 2019]. .

Borah R, Brown AW, Capers PL, Kaiser KA. Analysis of the time and workers needed to conduct systematic reviews of medical interventions using data from the PROSPERO registry. BMJ Open. 2017;7:e012545. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012545.

Grant MJ, Booth A. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Inf Libr J. 2009 Jun;26(2):91–108. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x.

Schünemann HJ, Moja L. Reviews: rapid! rapid! rapid!…and systematic. Syst Rev. 2015 Jan 14;4:4. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-4-4.

Giuse NB, Williams AM, Giuse DA. Integrating best evidence into patient care: a process facilitated by a seamless integration with informatics tools. J Med Libr Assoc. 2010 Jul;98(3):220–2. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.98.3.009.

Giuse NB, Koonce TY, Jerome RN, Cahall M, Sathe NA, Williams A. Evaluation of a mature clinical informationist model. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2005 May–Jun;12(3):249–55. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1197/jamia.M1726.

Mulvaney SA, Bickman L, Giuse NB, Lambert EW, Sathe NA, Jerome RN. A randomized effectiveness trial of a clinical informatics consult service: impact on evidence-based decision-making and knowledge implementation. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2008 Mar–Apr;15(2):203–11. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1197/jamia.M2461.

PwC Health Research Institute. Investing in a knowledge organization: Vanderbilt’s Knowledge Management Team. In: Needles in a haystack: seeking knowledge with clinical informatics. Philadelphia, PA: Health Research Institute, PricewaterhouseCoopers; 2012. p. 38–9.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2019.707

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.




Copyright (c) 2019 Zachary E. Fox, Annette M. Williams, Mallory N. Blasingame, Taneya Y. Koonce, Sheila V. Kusnoor, Jing Su, Patricia Lee, Marcia I. Epelbaum, Helen M. Naylor, Spencer J. DesAutels, Elizabeth T. Frakes, Nunzia Bettinsoli Giuse

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.