Improving peer review of systematic reviews by involving librarians and information specialists: protocol for a randomized controlled trial.
Librarians and information specialists
Literature searching
Peer review
Systematic reviews
Journal
Trials
ISSN: 1745-6215
Titre abrégé: Trials
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101263253
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
11 Nov 2021
11 Nov 2021
Historique:
received:
18
06
2021
accepted:
20
10
2021
entrez:
12
11
2021
pubmed:
13
11
2021
medline:
16
11
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Problems continue to exist with the reporting quality and risk of bias in search methods and strategies in systematic reviews and related review types. Peer reviewers who are not familiar with what is required to transparently and fully report a search may not be prepared to review the search components of systematic reviews, nor may they know what is likely to introduce bias into a search. Librarians and information specialists, who have expertise in searching, may offer specialized knowledge that would help improve systematic review search reporting and lessen risk of bias, but they are underutilized as methodological peer reviewers. This study will evaluate the effect of adding librarians and information specialists as methodological peer reviewers on the quality of search reporting and risk of bias in systematic review searches. The study will be a pragmatic randomized controlled trial using 150 systematic review manuscripts submitted to BMJ and BMJ Open as the unit of randomization. Manuscripts that report on completed systematic reviews and related review types and have been sent for peer review are eligible. For each manuscript randomized to the intervention, a librarian/information specialist will be invited as an additional peer reviewer using standard practices for each journal. First revision manuscripts will be assessed in duplicate for reporting quality and risk of bias, using adherence to 4 items from PRISMA-S and assessors' judgements on 4 signaling questions from ROBIS Domain 2, respectively. Identifying information from the manuscripts will be removed prior to assessment. The primary outcomes for this study are quality of reporting as indicated by differences in the proportion of adequately reported searches in first revision manuscripts between intervention and control groups and risk of bias as indicated by differences in the proportions of first revision manuscripts with high, low, and unclear bias. If the intervention demonstrates an effect on search reporting or bias, this may indicate a need for journal editors to work with librarians and information specialists as methodological peer reviewers. Open Science Framework. Registered on June 17, 2021, at https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/W4CK2 .
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Problems continue to exist with the reporting quality and risk of bias in search methods and strategies in systematic reviews and related review types. Peer reviewers who are not familiar with what is required to transparently and fully report a search may not be prepared to review the search components of systematic reviews, nor may they know what is likely to introduce bias into a search. Librarians and information specialists, who have expertise in searching, may offer specialized knowledge that would help improve systematic review search reporting and lessen risk of bias, but they are underutilized as methodological peer reviewers.
METHODS
METHODS
This study will evaluate the effect of adding librarians and information specialists as methodological peer reviewers on the quality of search reporting and risk of bias in systematic review searches. The study will be a pragmatic randomized controlled trial using 150 systematic review manuscripts submitted to BMJ and BMJ Open as the unit of randomization. Manuscripts that report on completed systematic reviews and related review types and have been sent for peer review are eligible. For each manuscript randomized to the intervention, a librarian/information specialist will be invited as an additional peer reviewer using standard practices for each journal. First revision manuscripts will be assessed in duplicate for reporting quality and risk of bias, using adherence to 4 items from PRISMA-S and assessors' judgements on 4 signaling questions from ROBIS Domain 2, respectively. Identifying information from the manuscripts will be removed prior to assessment.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSIONS
The primary outcomes for this study are quality of reporting as indicated by differences in the proportion of adequately reported searches in first revision manuscripts between intervention and control groups and risk of bias as indicated by differences in the proportions of first revision manuscripts with high, low, and unclear bias. If the intervention demonstrates an effect on search reporting or bias, this may indicate a need for journal editors to work with librarians and information specialists as methodological peer reviewers.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
BACKGROUND
Open Science Framework. Registered on June 17, 2021, at https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/W4CK2 .
Identifiants
pubmed: 34763714
doi: 10.1186/s13063-021-05738-z
pii: 10.1186/s13063-021-05738-z
pmc: PMC8582191
doi:
Types de publication
Clinical Trial Protocol
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
791Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s).
Références
J Clin Epidemiol. 2006 Oct;59(10):1057-63
pubmed: 16980145
Res Synth Methods. 2021 Mar;12(2):136-147
pubmed: 33031639
PLoS Med. 2009 Jul 21;6(7):e1000100
pubmed: 19621070
BMJ. 2021 Mar 29;372:n71
pubmed: 33782057
J Clin Epidemiol. 2016 Jul;75:40-6
pubmed: 27005575
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019 Mar 13;19(1):57
pubmed: 30866832
Acad Med. 2011 Aug;86(8):1049-54
pubmed: 21694568
J Clin Epidemiol. 2016 Jan;69:225-34
pubmed: 26092286
Ann Intern Med. 2013 Feb 5;158(3):200-7
pubmed: 23295957
BMJ. 2021 Mar 29;372:n160
pubmed: 33781993
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019 May 31;19(1):112
pubmed: 31151417
J Am Acad Dermatol. 2004 Aug;51(2):234-40
pubmed: 15280842
Health Info Libr J. 2021 Sep;38(3):160-171
pubmed: 33713526
Syst Rev. 2021 Jan 26;10(1):39
pubmed: 33499930
Res Synth Methods. 2014 Jun;5(2):116-30
pubmed: 26052651
J Med Libr Assoc. 2017 Jul;105(3):233-239
pubmed: 28670210
J Med Libr Assoc. 2019 Apr;107(2):210-221
pubmed: 31019390
Ann Emerg Med. 2002 Sep;40(3):329-33
pubmed: 12192359
PLoS One. 2016 Sep 26;11(9):e0163309
pubmed: 27669416
PLoS Med. 2016 May 24;13(5):e1002028
pubmed: 27218655
J Clin Epidemiol. 2015 Jun;68(6):617-26
pubmed: 25766056
J Clin Epidemiol. 2020 Jun;122:87-94
pubmed: 32184126
BMJ. 2011 Nov 22;343:d6783
pubmed: 22108262
PLoS One. 2015 May 04;10(5):e0125931
pubmed: 25938454
J Med Libr Assoc. 2016 Oct;104(4):267-277
pubmed: 27822147
BMJ Open. 2020 May 18;10(5):e036799
pubmed: 32430454
Res Integr Peer Rev. 2019 Nov 27;4:23
pubmed: 31798974
J Clin Epidemiol. 2009 Sep;62(9):944-52
pubmed: 19230612
PLoS One. 2007 Mar 28;2(3):e332
pubmed: 17389922
PLoS One. 2020 Oct 1;15(10):e0239598
pubmed: 33002031
Ann Emerg Med. 2002 Sep;40(3):334-7
pubmed: 12192360
J Clin Epidemiol. 2008 May;61(5):440-8
pubmed: 18394536
J Med Libr Assoc. 2009 Jan;97(1):21-9
pubmed: 19158999