Adopting a toolkit to manage time, resources, and expectations in the systematic review process: a case report
Keywords:systematic review, toolkit, expectations, team management, process management, project management
Background: The proliferation of systematic reviews has impacted library operations and activities as librarians support, collaborate, and perform more tasks in the systematic review process. This case report describes a toolkit that librarians with extensive experience in supporting multiple review teams use to manage time, resources, and expectations in the systematic review process.
Case Presentation: The toolkit is a compilation of documents that we use to effectively communicate with and help review teams understand and navigate each stage of the systematic review process. Elements included in the toolkit and discussed in this case report are intake forms, communication templates and memoranda, a process flow diagram, library guides on tools for retrieval and data appraisal, and established standards for guidance during the write-up stage. We describe the use of the toolkit for both education and project management, with a focus on its use in helping manage team time, resources, and expectations.
Discussion: The systematic review toolkit helps librarians connect systematic review steps and tasks to actionable items. The content facilitates and supports discussion and learning by both librarians and team members. This toolkit helps librarians share important information and resources for each stage of the process.
Grimshaw J. A guide to knowledge synthesis: a knowledge synthesis chapter. Ottawa: Canadian Institutes of Health Research; 2010.
Beverley CA, Booth A, Bath PA. The role of the information specialist in the systematic review process: a health information case study. Health Info Libr J. 2003;20(2):65–74.
Spencer AJ, Eldredge JD. Roles for librarians in systematic reviews: a scoping review. J Med Libr Assoc. 2018;106(1):46.
International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Defining the role of authors and contributors [Internet]. 2016. Available from: <http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html>.
Bullers K, Howard AM, Hanson A, Kearns WD, Orriola JJ, Polo RL, Sakmar KA. It takes longer than you think: librarian time spent on systematic review tasks. J Med Libr Assoc. 2018;106(2):198.
Wafford QE, O'Dwyer L. Systematic Review Toolkit [Outlines]. DigitalHub. Galter Health Sciences Library & Learning Center. 2021 [updated 14 Jan 2021]. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18131/g3-fx9k-hs23.
Tsafnat G, Glasziou P, Choong MK, Dunn A, Galgani F, Coiera E. Systematic review automation technologies. Syst Rev. 2014;3(1):74.
Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, Shekelle P, Stewart LA. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Systematic reviews. 2015;4(1):1.
Shamseer L, Moher D, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, Shekelle P, Stewart LA. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. BMJ. 2015;349.
Moher D, Altman DG, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J. PRISMA statement. Epidemiology. 2011;22(1):128.
Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, Clarke M, Devereaux PJ, Kleijnen J, Moher D. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62(10):e1–e34.
Galter Health Sciences Library and Learning Center. Systematic Reviews 2021 [Internet]. Available from: https://libguides.galter.northwestern.edu/systematic-reviews.
O'Dwyer LC, Wafford QE. Addressing challenges with systematic review teams through effective communication: a case report. J Med Libr Assoc. 2021;109(4).
Paez A. Gray literature: An important resource in systematic reviews. J Evid Based Med. 2017;10(3):233–40.
Wafford QE. Managing Multiple Systematic Reviews: Recommended Practices and the Systematic Review Tracking Checklist. 2019 [Internet]. DOI: 10.18131/g3-p2jx-7g16.