Health Libraries Australia Professional Development Day 2012 [combined presentation]

1. Understanding and using published standards for high
quality systematic review searches
+
The health librarian as a systematic review team
member: practical considerations
Ruth Mitchell, Cochrane Renal Group
Catherine King, National Centre for Immunisation
Research and Surveillance (NCIRS)

2. Introduction
• Standards
 planning the search
Using standards to
 development of expert strategies assist negotiations,
 reporting the search expectations and
documentation
around who does
• Practical outworking of each what, why, when
and how
 negotiation
 management of expectations
 documentation

3. Standards for conducting systematic reviews
Methodological standards for the conduct of
Cochrane intervention reviews (Version 2.1)
80 standards
15 standards relating to searching for studies
 Development led by Information Methods Retrieval Group
Finding what works in health care:
standards for systematic reviews
17 standards with 71 ‘elements’ or steps
7 standards with 18 ‘elements’ relating to searching

4. Standards for planning the search
Standard 19 Planning the search requires authors:
 to plan in advance the methods to be used for identifying studies.
 to design searches to capture as many studies as possible meeting the
eligibility criteria
 to cover relevant time periods and sources
 to NOT restrict by language or publication status

5. Standards for planning the search
2.1 Establish a team with appropriate expertise and experience
to conduct the systematic review
 2.1.3 Include expertise in searching for relevant evidence
2.5 Formulate the topic for the systematic review
 2.5.3 Use a standard format to articulate each question of interest
3.1 Conduct a comprehensive systematic search for evidence
 3.1.1 Work with a librarian/information specialist to plan the search
strategy

6. Practical - Planning
• Negotiation
 Individual circumstances (e.g. Hospital/ Uni library)
 Continuum of involvement (guide to standards
full involvement)
 Clarification of purpose – e.g. Masters, Cochrane
 Scope of review
 Reference interview – existing skills
 Clarification often assists researchers as much as
librarian

7. Practical - Planning
• Expectations
 Your own – team roles, timelines/time allocation
 Researchers – team roles, time required
• Documentation
 Discussions – supervisor/research team
 Confirm via email where possible

8. Standards for search strategy development and
conduct
Searching for studies - Standards 24-38
 Sources to search – databases, prospective trial registries, grey
literature, author contact reference lists… 8
maximize sensitivity with “reasonable precision”
 Search strategy development – use PICO and study design 1
 Use controlled vocabulary and free-text terms 1
 Use appropriate search filters 1
 Justify use of any restrictions 1
 Documentation – reported searches should be reproducible 1
 Rerun searches within 12 months before publication of review 1

9. Standards for search strategy development and
conduct
IOM
Standard 3.1 Conduct a comprehensive search for evidence
 Search strategy development, sources to search,
updating searches 7
 Peer review of strategy by an independent information
specialist 1
Standard 3.2 Take action to address potentially biased reporting
of research results
 Grey literature, handsearching, contact researchers…3
Standard 3.4 Document the search
 Line-by-line description, database, date of search 1

10. Practical – Search development
• Negotiate scope
 PICO
 Scoping search
 Published/Grey literature/Clinical trial registries
• Expectation management
 Your own – monitoring time/involvement
 Team – “think my search is pretty good”..
 Timeframes – “can I have all the searches by Friday?”

11. Practical – Search development
• Documentation
 Account set-up (e.g. in OVID or similar)
 Saving – for researcher/self (always keep own copy!)
 Version control/ naming
 Searches – strategy, databases, interface, currency dates
searched

12. Standards for reporting searches
Methodological standards for the reporting of
Cochrane intervention reviews
Still under development
Cover the content required for both abstract and main body of a
review e.g.
 All sources searched
 Date of last search
 Any restrictions placed on search
 Who designed and carried out the search
 Full line by line copy of each strategy
Can be viewed at http://www.editorial-unit.cochrane.org/mecir

13. Standards for reporting searches
Standards for Reporting Systematic
Reviews
Standard 5.1 Prepare final report using a structured format
5.1.6 Include a methods section. Describe the following:
Databases and other information sources used to identify relevant studies
Search strategy
Item 7: Information sources
Describe all information sources in the search (such as databases with dates of
coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) and date last
searched.
Item 8: Search
Present the full electronic search strategy for at least one major database, including
any limits used, such that it could be repeated.

14. Practical - Reporting
• Negotiate
 What to include – guide using standards
 How much involvement in write up?
 Acknowledgment? – check final product
• Expectations
 Your own – finished now or still involved?
 Team – what expectations do they have re reporting
requirements/librarian involvement?

15. Practical - Reporting
• Documentation
 Reporting – ensure search can be replicated
 Check researcher has exact copies of searches + all
information as documented in the search
development/running phase
 Journals – PRISMA – full strategy (appendix/web extra)

16. Conclusions
• Standards – assist rather than hinder
• Reinforce key role of information specialist
• Provide framework for negotiation, expectation
management and documentation
• Communication skills, diplomacy and sense of
humour

17. References
Cochrane
http://www.editorial-unit.cochrane.org/mecir
IOM
http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2011/Finding-What-Works-in-
Health-Care-Standards-for-Systematic-Reviews.aspx
PRISMA
http://www.prisma-statement.org/
Other standards:
AHRQ
http://effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/search-for-guides-reviews-
and-reports/?pageaction=displayproduct&mp=1&productID=318
CRD http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/index_guidance.htm

18. Acknowledgments
• Cochrane Renal Group
• National Centre for Immunisation Research
and Surveillance (NCIRS)

19. Activity - Scenario role play
2 scenarios to choose from
 Break into pairs
one person takes info specialist role
one person takes client role (opportunity to channel
your inner worst/best client!)
 Aim is to negotiate issues and establish
expectations for the planning stage of searching
for a systematic review
 Feedback from 1 pair from each group