J Med Libr Assoc. 2022 Oct 1;110(4):409-418. doi: 10.5195/jmla.2022.1505.
The study aimed to analyze the documented role of a librarian in published systematic reviews and meta-analyses whose registered protocols mentioned librarian involvement. The intention was to identify how, or if, librarians' involvement was formally documented, how their contributions were described, and if there were any potential connections between this documentation and basic metrics of search reproducibility and quality.
Reviews whose PROSPERO protocols were registered in 2017 and 2018 and that also specifically mentioned a librarian were analyzed for documentation of the librarian's involvement. Language describing the librarian and their involvement was gathered and coded, and additional information about the review, including search strategy details, was also collected.
A total of 209 reviews were found and analyzed. Of these, 28% had a librarian co-author, 41% named a librarian in the acknowledgements section, and 78% mentioned the contribution of a librarian within the body of the review. However, mentions of a librarian within the review were often generic ("a librarian") and in 31% of all reviews analyzed no librarian was specified by name. In 9% of the reviews, there was no reference to a librarian found at all. Language about librarians' contributions usually only referenced their work with search strategy development. Reviews with librarian coauthors typically described the librarian's work in active voice centering the librarian, unlike reviews without librarian coauthors. Most reviews had reproducible search strategies that utilized subject headings and keywords, but some had flawed or missing strategies.
Even among this set of reviews, where librarian involvement was specified at the protocol level, librarians' contributions were often described with minimal, or even no, language in the final published review. Much room for improvement appears to remain in terms of how librarians' work is documented.
本研究旨在分析在注册方案中提到图书馆员参与的已发表的系统评价和荟萃分析文献中记录的图书馆员角色。目的是确定图书馆员的参与是如何正式记录的,他们的贡献是如何描述的,以及这种记录与检索可重复性和质量的基本指标之间是否存在任何潜在联系。
分析了在 2017 年和 2018 年 PROSPERO 方案注册且特别提到图书馆员的综述,以记录图书馆员的参与情况。收集并编码描述图书馆员及其参与的语言,并收集有关综述的其他信息,包括检索策略细节。
共发现并分析了 209 篇综述。其中,28%的综述有图书馆员合著者,41%的综述在致谢部分提到了图书馆员,78%的综述在综述正文中提到了图书馆员的贡献。然而,综述中对图书馆员的提及通常是笼统的(“一名图书馆员”),在分析的所有综述中,有 31%的综述没有具体提到图书馆员的姓名。在 9%的综述中,根本没有提到图书馆员。关于图书馆员贡献的语言通常仅提到他们在检索策略制定方面的工作。有图书馆员合著者的综述通常使用主动语态描述图书馆员的工作,而没有图书馆员合著者的综述则不然。大多数综述的检索策略具有可重复性,使用了主题词和关键词,但也有一些策略存在缺陷或缺失。
即使在这组有明确规定图书馆员参与协议的综述中,图书馆员的贡献在最终发表的综述中也常常只有很少的甚至没有语言描述。在如何记录图书馆员的工作方面,似乎还有很大的改进空间。