Structure and elements of library evidence synthesis services: a content analysis of publicly available information
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2026.2263Keywords:
Evidence Synthesis, Library services, Content analysisAbstract
Objective: Through a content analysis of public websites, this paper provides a centralized and summarized picture of evidence synthesis (ES) service characteristics at academic libraries and medical schools and centers in the United States in the mid-2020s.
Methods: Our team identified 116 institutions classified in the 2021 Carnegie Classification as R1, R2, or Medical Schools and Centers that had an ES service. These services were coded for service characteristics. Using frequency and comparison tables, we answered the following research questions: What are the common structures and characteristics of ES services, within and independent of Carnegie Classification of Research Activity? Is there any relationship between Carnegie Classification of Research Activity and Size & Setting and characteristics of ES services?
Results: We found that services often used tiers to delineate between services offered, with higher tiers requiring more responsibilities from the library or information professional. Some universities and medical schools limit librarian involvement with ES projects based on user role (student, faculty, researcher, etc.) or user affiliation with a college or department. Librarian acknowledgment or authorship are common in return for engagement in ES projects. Fees and Memoranda of Understanding were uncommon but do exist at some institutions.
Conclusion: Librarians seeking to create or update their ES service can benefit from this ‘data snapshot,’ as it will allow them to see the service elements under consideration by other institutions and offer ideas for their own services. Overall, we found that there were more similarities than differences between basic ES service structures (e.g. tier amounts/categories, presence of fees, etc.), independent of classification type or size setting. We recommend that librarians utilize this paper and the associated data in order to identify which institutional elements are important in their context for ideas in improving their ES service.
References
Hoffmann F, Allers K, Rombey T, Helbach J, Hoffmann A, Mathes T, Pieper D. Nearly 80 systematic reviews were published each day: Observational study on trends in epidemiology and reporting over the years 2000-2019. J Clin Epidemiol. 2021 Oct;138:1-11. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.05.022.
Smela B, Toumi M., Świerk K, Gawlik K, Clay E, Boyer L. Systematic literature reviews over the years.. J Mark Access Health Policy. 2023 Aug;11(1). doi:10.1080/20016689.2023.2244305.
Baumeister RF. Writing a Literature Review. In: The Portable Mentor. New York, NY: Springer; 2013. p. 119-132. doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-3994-3_8.
Koffel JB. Use of recommended search strategies in systematic reviews and the impact of librarian involvement: a cross-sectional survey of recent authors. PloS One. 2015 May;10(5):e012593. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.012593.
Page MJ, Moher D, Bossuyt P., Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow, CD, Shamseer L, Tetzlaff JM, Akl EA, Brennan SE, Chou R., Glanville J, Grimshaw JM, Hróbjartsson A, Lalu MM, Li T, Loder E, Mayo-Wilson EW, McDonald S, McGuinness LA, Stewart LA, Thomas J, Tricco AC, Welcho VA, Whiting P. PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021 March;372(72): 1-36. doi:10.1136/bmj.n71.
Pussegoda K, Turner L, Garritty C, Mayhew A, Skidmore B, Stevens A, Boutron I, Sarkis-Onofre R, Bjerre LM, Hróbjartsson A, Altman DG, Moher D. Systematic review adherence to methodological or reporting quality. Syst Rev. 2017 Jul 19;6(1):131. doi: 10.1186/s13643-017-0527-2.
Rethlefsen ML, Farrell AM, Osterhaus Trzasko LC, Brigham TJ. Librarian co-authors correlated with higher quality reported search strategies in general internal medicine systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2015 Jun;68(6):617-26. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.11.025. Epub 2015 Feb 7. PMID: 25766056.
Demetres MR, Wright DN, Hickner A, Jedlicka C, Delgado D. A decade of systematic reviews: an assessment of Weill Cornell Medicine's systematic review service. J Med Libr Assoc. 2023 Jul 10;111(3):728-732. doi: 10.5195/jmla.2023.1628.
Healy HS, Regan M, Deberg J. Examining the reach and impact of a systematic review service. Med Ref Serv Q. 2020 Apr-Jun;39(2):125-138. doi: 10.1080/02763869.2020.1726150.
Knehans A, Dell E, Robinson C. Starting a fee-based systematic review service. Med Ref Serv Q. 2016 Jul-Sep;35(3):266-73. doi: 10.1080/02763869.2016.1189779.
Luca EJ, Ulyannikova Y. Towards a user-centred systematic review service: the transformative power of service design thinking. J Aust Libr & Inf Assoc. 2020;69(3):357-374. doi:10.1080/24750158.2020.1760506.
Ludeman E, Downton K, Shipper AG, Fu Y. Developing a library systematic review service: a case study. Med Ref Serv Q. 2015;34(2):173-80. doi: 10.1080/02763869.2015.1019323.
McKeown S, Ross-White A. Building capacity for librarian support and addressing collaboration challenges by formalizing library systematic review services. J Med Libr Assoc. 2019 Jul;107(3):411-419. doi: 10.5195/jmla.2019.443.
Ross-White A. An environmental scan of librarian involvement in systematic reviews at Queen's University: 2020 update. J Can Health Libr Assoc. 2021 Aug 1;42(2):110-117. doi: 10.29173/jchla29517.
Roth SC. Transforming the systematic review service: a team-based model to support the educational needs of researchers. J Med Libr Assoc. 2018 Oct;106(4):514-520. doi: 10.5195/jmla.2018.430.
Tchangalova N, Harrington EG, Ritchie S, Over S. Working across disciplines and library units to develop a suite of systematic review services for researchers. Collab Libr. 2019;11(4):267-281.
Yang L, Orchanian-Cheff A, Anderson M, Farrell A, Tripp T. Implementing a three-tiered service model for knowledge syntheses at an academic teaching hospital. JCHLA. 2020;41(2):46-66. doi:10.29173/jchla29436
Boden C, Bolton S, & Gerrard A. Health sciences and beyond: An investigation into Canadian librarian participation in systematic reviews across disciplines. C&RL. 2025 May; 86(1): 79.doi: 10.5860/crl.86.1.79.
Westmark DM, Hartman TL, Schmidt CM. Landscape of health sciences librarian-mediated search services. Health Info Libr J. 2022;39(4):365-376. doi:10.1111/hir.12447.
Lee J., Hayden K., Ganshorn H., Pethrick H. A content analysis of systematic review online library guides. Evid Based Libr Inf Pract, 2021: 16(1):60–77. doi:10.18438/eblip29819
Comer C, McElfresh J, McElfresh J, Jacobsen A, Brennan E, Wright L, Demetres M, Jewell T, McCall-Junkin P, Marks L. Cumulative Repository for Evidence Synthesis and/or Systematic Review Service Material [Internet]. In: OSF. Washington, DC: Center for Open Science [rev. 6 June 2023; cited 13 June 2025 ]. https://osf.io/689hr/.
Guest G, Bunce A, Johnson L. How many interviews are enough?: An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods. 2006;18(1):59-82. doi:10.1177/1525822X05279903
Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research. About [Internet]. In: Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education. Bloomington, Indiana: American Council on Education [rev. 2022; cited 13 June 2025]. https://carnegieclassifications.acenet.edu/about/
Maxwell JA. Saying ‘yes’ and ‘no:’developing and implementing a single-librarian social science evidence synthesis service. New Review of Academic Librarianship. 2025 Feb 14:1-4. doi:10.1080/13614533.2025.2466512.
International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals [Internet]. In: ICMJE. Philadelphia, PA: American College of Physicians [rev. April 2025; cited13 June 2025]. https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html
Eden J, Levit L, Berg A, Morton S, eds. Finding what works in health care: Standards for systematic reviews. 1st ed. Washington, DC. National Academies Press; 2011.
Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. 6.5 version. Cochrane; 2024.
Rethlefsen ML, Murad MH, Livingston EH. Engaging medical librarians to improve the quality of review articles. JAMA. 2014;312(10):999-1000. doi:10.1001/jama.2014.9263.
Lipke L, Price C. Rethinking systematic review assignment design in graduate health science education from librarians’ perspectives. Hypothesis: Journal of the Research Section of MLA. 2025;37(1):1-16. doi:10.18060/28463.
Kallaher A, Eldermire ERB, Fournier CT, Ghezzi-Kopel K, Johnson KA, Morris-Knower J, et al. Library systematic review service supports evidence-based practice outside of medicine. J Acad Libr. 2020 Nov 1; 46(6). doi: 10.1016/j.acalib.2020.102222.
Riegelman A, Kocher, M. A model for developing and implementing a systematic review service for disciplines outside the health sciences. Ref. User Serv. Q. 2018 Fall; 58(1): 22-27. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/90025627.
Additional Files
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Jaena Manson, Anna White, Emily Metcalf
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
