Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2021 Sep 1;16(9):e0256833.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0256833. eCollection 2021.

The effect of librarian involvement on the quality of systematic reviews in dental medicine

Jana Schellinger  1 , Kerry Sewell  2 , Jamie E Bloss  2 , Tristan Ebron  3 , Carrie Forbes  2
Affiliations

The effect of librarian involvement on the quality of systematic reviews in dental medicine

Jana Schellinger et al. PLoS One. .

Abstract

Objectives: To determine whether librarian or information specialist authorship is associated with better reproducibility of the search, at least three databases searched, and better reporting quality in dental systematic reviews (SRs).

Methods: SRs from the top ten dental research journals (as determined by Journal Citation Reports and Scimago) were reviewed for search quality and reproducibility by independent reviewers using two Qualtrics survey instruments. Data was reviewed for all SRs based on reproducibility and librarian participation and further reviewed for search quality of reproducible searches.

Results: Librarians were co-authors in only 2.5% of the 913 included SRs and librarians were mentioned or acknowledged in only 9% of included SRs. Librarian coauthors were associated with more reproducible searches, higher search quality, and at least three databases searched. Although the results indicate librarians are associated with improved SR quality, due to the small number of SRs that included a librarian, results were not statistically significant.

Conclusion: Despite guidance from organizations that produce SR guidelines recommending the inclusion of a librarian or information specialist on the review team, and despite evidence showing that librarians improve the reproducibility of searches and the reporting of methodology in SRs, librarians are not being included in SRs in the field of dental medicine. The authors of this review recommend the inclusion of a librarian on SR teams in dental medicine and other fields.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Fig 1
Fig 1. Inclusion of search strategy.
Illustrates number of articles that included at least one full search, described the search process, or provided no search information.
Fig 2
Fig 2. Information reported in reviews.
Illustrates the percent of all articles examined that included the information listed. Grey Literature was reported in 56.5% of reviews with a librarian co-author, 69.5% of reviews with an acknowledged librarian, and 72% of articles with no mention of a librarian. Inclusion criteria was reported in 95.7% of reviews with a librarian co-author, 100% of reviews with an acknowledged librarian, and 94.4% of articles with no mention of a librarian. Exclusion criteria was reported in 78.3% of reviews with a librarian co-author, 75.6% of reviews with an acknowledged librarian, and 74.6% of articles with no mention of a librarian. Whether authors were blinded to each other’s work was reported in 82.6% of reviews with a librarian co-author, 85.4% of reviews with an acknowledged librarian, and 71% of articles with no mention of a librarian. Number of reviewers who examined titles and abstracts of articles was reported in 69.6% of reviews with a librarian co-author, 79.3% of reviews with an acknowledged librarian, and 67.1% of articles with no mention of a librarian. Number of reviewers who examined full texts of articles was reported in 87% of reviews with a librarian co-author, 81.7% of reviews with an acknowledged librarian, and 66.8% of articles with no mention of a librarian.
Fig 3
Fig 3. Numbers as reported in reviews.
Illustrates the percent of articles that reported the following: number of articles identified from database searching, number of duplicates removed, number of titles and abstracts screened, number of full text articles screened, and the number of articles included in the final review. Each of these was broken down by whether a librarian was included as a co-author, if a librarian was acknowledged, or if there was no mention of a librarian.
Fig 4
Fig 4. Information reported in reproducible searches.
Within reproducible searches, illustrates the percent of articles that included the information listed. Grey Literature was reported in 37.5% of reviews with a librarian co-author, 40.5% of reviews with an acknowledged librarian, and 42.4% of articles with no mention of a librarian. Whether authors were blinded to each other’s work was reported in 81.3% of reviews with a librarian co-author, 83.3% of reviews with an acknowledged librarian, and 78.4% of articles with no mention of a librarian. Number of reviewers who examined titles and abstracts of articles was reported in 62.5% of reviews with a librarian co-author, 76.2% of reviews with an acknowledged librarian, and 76.6% of articles with no mention of a librarian. Number of reviewers who examined full texts of articles was reported in 87.5% of reviews with a librarian co-author, 81% of reviews with an acknowledged librarian, and 74.9% of articles with no mention of a librarian. Whether a risk of bias assessment was completed was reported in 81.3% of reviews with a librarian co-author, 88.1% of reviews with an acknowledged librarian, and 77.4% of articles with no mention of a librarian.
Fig 5
Fig 5. Search syntax mistakes.
Within reproducible searches, illustrates the percent of articles with errors in the following categories: Line numbers (only searches with line numbers were assessed), System syntax errors, Spelling errors, Errors in the use of proximity operators (only searches with proximity operators were assessed), Errors in the use of Boolean operators, Errors in the use of brackets.
Fig 6
Fig 6. Search language mistakes.
Within reproducible searches, illustrates the percent of articles with errors in the following categories: Use of MeSH or Emtree headings (only searches with headings were assessed), Inclusion of irrelevant MeSH or Emtree headings (only searches with headings were assessed), Missing natural language variants, Missing spelling variants (such as pediatric/paediatric), Inclusion of irrelevant natural language variants, Errors in the use of truncation (only searches with truncation were assessed), Inclusion of unwarranted limits (date, language, etc.).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Faggion CM Jr, Huivin R, Aranda L, Pandis N, Alarcon M. 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. 2018Jun1;98:53–61. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.02.011 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Pussegoda K, Turner L, Garritty C, Mayhew A, Skidmore B, Stevens A, et al.. Systematic review adherence to methodological or reporting quality. Systematic reviews. 2017Dec;6(1):1–4. doi: 10.1186/s13643-016-0385-3 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Prisma Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS medicine. 2009Jul21;6(7):e1000097. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Nawijn F, Ham WH, Houwert RM, Groenwold RH, Hietbrink F, Smeeing DP. Quality of reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in emergency medicine based on the PRISMA statement. BMC emergency medicine. 2019Dec;19(1):1–8. doi: 10.1186/s12873-018-0218-x - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Page MJ, Shamseer L, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Sampson M, Tricco AC, et al.. Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews of biomedical research: a cross-sectional study. PLoS medicine. 2016May24;13(5):e1002028. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002028 - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Grants and funding

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.