It takes longer than you think: librarian time spent on systematic review tasks
Keywords:Systematic Reviews, Literature Search Methods, Types of Information Resources, Review Literature as Topic, Surveys and Questionnaires, Task Performance and Analysis, Time Management, Staffing
Introduction: The authors examined the time that medical librarians spent on specific tasks for systematic reviews (SRs): interview process, search strategy development, search strategy translation, documentation, deliverables, search methodology writing, and instruction. We also investigated relationships among the time spent on SR tasks, years of experience, and number of completed SRs to gain a better understanding of the time spent on SR tasks from time, staffing, and project management perspectives.
Methods: A confidential survey and study description were sent to medical library directors who were members of the Association of Academic Health Sciences Libraries as well as librarians serving members of the Association of American Medical Colleges or American Osteopathic Association.
Results: Of the 185 participants, 143 (77%) had worked on an SR within the last 5 years. The number of SRs conducted by participants during their careers ranged from 1 to 500, with a median of 5. The major component of time spent was on search strategy development and translation. Average aggregated time for standard tasks was 26.9 hours, with a median of 18.5 hours. Task time was unrelated to the number of SRs but was positively correlated with years of SR experience.
Conclusion: The time required to conduct the librarian’s discrete tasks in an SR varies substantially, and there are no standard time frames. Librarians with more SR experience spent more time on instruction and interviews; time spent on all other tasks varied widely. Librarians also can expect to spend a significant amount of their time on search strategy development, translation, and writing.
This article has been approved for the Medical Library Association’s Independent Reading Program.
Eden J, Levit L, Berg A, Morton S, eds. Finding what works in health care: standards for systematic reviews. National Academies Press; 2011. (Available from: <https://www.nap.edu/catalog/13059/finding-what-works-in-health-care-standards-for-systematic-reviews>. [cited 20 Feb 2018].)
Higgins JPT, Green S, eds. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions [Internet]. Cochrane Collaboration; 2011 [cited 20 Feb 2018]. .
Relevo R, Balshem H. Finding evidence for comparing medical interventions: methods guide for effectiveness and comparative effectiveness reviews [Internet]. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2011 [cited 29 Jan 2018]. <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK53479/>.
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.
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):e0125931.
Weller AC. Mounting evidence that librarians are essential for comprehensive literature searches for meta-analyses and Cochrane reports. J Med Libr Assoc. 2004 Apr;92(2):163–4.
McGowan J, Sampson M. Systematic reviews need systematic searchers. J Med Libr Assoc. 2005 Jan;93(1):74–80.
Gore G, Jones J. Systematic reviews and librarians: a primer for managers. Partnership: Can J Libr Inf Pract Res. 2015;10(1):1–16.
Li L, Tian J, Tian H, Moher D, Liang F, Jiang T, Yao L, Yang K. Network meta-analyses could be improved by searching more sources and by involving a librarian. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014 Sep;67(9):1001–7.
Crum JA, Cooper ID. Emerging roles for biomedical librarians: a survey of current practice, challenges, and changes. J Med Libr Assoc. 2013 Oct;101(4):278–86. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.101.4.009.
Golder S, Loke Y, McIntosh HM. Poor reporting and inadequate searches were apparent in systematic reviews of adverse effects. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008 May;61(5):440–8.
Meert D, Torabi N, Costella J. Impact of librarians on reporting of the literature searching component of pediatric systematic reviews. J Med Libr Assoc. 2016 Oct;104(4):267–77. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.104.4.004.
Knehans A, Dell E, Robinson C. Starting a fee-based systematic review service. Med Ref Serv Q. 2016 Jul;35(3):266–73.
Allen IE, Olkin I. Estimating time to conduct a meta-analysis from number of citations retrieved. JAMA. 1999 Aug 18;282(7):634–5.
Saleh AA, Ratajeski MA, Bertolet M. Grey literature searching for health sciences systematic reviews: a prospective study of time spent and resources utilized. Evid Based Libr Inf Pract. 2014;9(3):28–50.
Gann LB, Pratt GF. Using library search service metrics to demonstrate library value and manage workload. J Med Libr Assoc. 2013 Jul;101(3):227–9. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.101.3.015.
Nunnally J, Bernstein IH. Psychometric theory. 3rd ed. New York, NY: McGraw Hill; 1994.
Desmeules R, Dorgan M, Campbell S. Acknowledging librarians’ contributions to systematic review searching. J Can Health Libr Assoc. 2016;37(2):44–52.
Harris MR. The librarian’s roles in the systematic review process: a case study. J Med Libr Assoc. 2005 Jan;93(1):81–7.
Koffel JB, Rethlefsen ML. Reproducibility of search strategies is poor in systematic reviews published in high-impact pediatrics, cardiology and surgery journals: a cross-sectional study. PLOS ONE. 2016 Sep;11(9):e0163309.