Papel estratégico del bibliotecario en las revisiones sistemáticas
Barra lateral del artículo
Contenido principal del artículo
Resumen
Los bibliotecarios juegan un papel esencial en las revisiones sistemáticas y otros documentos de síntesis de la evidencia, mejorando la calidad, visibilidad y prestigio de la investigación generada. Su participación no solo eleva el valor de la biblioteca, sino que también fortalece su papel en la investigación institucional gracias a su experiencia en búsquedas de información. Sin embargo, se enfrentan a desafíos significativos como la falta de reconocimiento, recursos limitados y la necesidad de capacitación metodológica.
Para abordar estas dificultades, las bibliotecas deben adaptarse y ofrecer Servicios de Revisión Sistemática en diferentes modalidades, ajustándose a las necesidades específicas de los investigadores y las instituciones. La implementación de estos servicios requiere una colaboración interdisciplinaria y apoyo institucional. Además, es crucial que los bibliotecarios sigan abogando por el reconocimiento adecuado de su colaboración, dada su contribución intelectual sustancial en las revisiones y reciban el crédito como co-autores en las publicaciones.
En conclusión, aunque existen obstáculos, los beneficios de involucrar a bibliotecarios en revisiones sistemáticas son evidentes, mejorando la calidad de las revisiones y contribuyendo al prestigio institucional.
Descargas
Detalles del artículo
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-CompartirIgual 4.0.
Citas
Aamodt, M., Huurdeman, H., & Strømme, H. (2019). Librarian Co-Authored Systematic Reviews are Associated with Lower Risk of Bias Compared to Systematic Reviews with Acknowledgement of Librarians or No Participation by Librarians. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 14(4), 103–127. https://doi.org/10.18438/eblip29601 DOI: https://doi.org/10.18438/eblip29601
Aromataris, E., Lockwood, C., Porritt, K., Pilla, B., & Jordan, Z. (Eds.). (2024). JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. JBI. https://doi.org/10.46658/JBIMES-24-01 DOI: https://doi.org/10.46658/JBIMES-24-01
Borrego, Á., Ardanuy, J., & Urbano, C. (2018). Librarians as Research Partners: Their Contribution to the Scholarly Endeavour Beyond Library and Information Science. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 44(5), 663-670. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2018.07.012 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2018.07.012
Brunskill, A., & Hanneke, R. (2023). The case of the disappearing librarians: Analyzing documentation of librarians’ contributions to systematic reviews. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 110(4), 409-418. https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2022.1505 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2022.1505
Bullers, K., Howard, A. M., Hanson, A., Kearns, W. D., Orriola, J. J., Polo, R. L., & Sakmar, K. A. (2018). It takes longer than you think: Librarian time spent on systematic review tasks. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 106(2). https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2018.323 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2018.323
Demetres, M. R., Wright, D. N., & DeRosa, A. P. (2020). Burnout among medical and health sciences information professionals who support systematic reviews: An exploratory study. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 108(1). https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2020.665 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2020.665
Ding, M., Soderberg, L., Jung, J. H., & Dahm, P. (2020). Low Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews Published in the Urological Literature (2016-2018). Urology, 138, 5-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2020.01.004 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2020.01.004
Farris, D. P., Lebo, R. A., & Price, C. (2024). Designing a framework for curriculum building in systematic review competencies for librarians: a case report. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 112(4), 357–363. https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2024.1930 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2024.1930
Higueras-Callejón, C., Mones-Iglesias, Á.-L., Salcedo-Sánchez, C., Herrera-Ramos, E., & Campos-Asensio, C. (2021). El bibliotecario como coautor de revisiones y síntesis de evidencia. Gaceta Sanitaria, 35(1), 102-103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gaceta.2020.06.020 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gaceta.2020.06.020
Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Standards for Systematic Reviews of Comparative Effectiveness Research. (2011). Finding What Works in Health Care: Standards for Systematic Reviews (J. Eden, L. Levit, A. Berg, & S. Morton, Eds.). National Academies Press (US). http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK209518/
Jacobsen, S. M., Douglas, A., Smith, C. A., Roberts, W., Ottwell, R., Oglesby, B., Yasler, C., Torgerson, T., Hartwell, M., & Vassar, M. (2021). Methodological quality of systematic reviews comprising clinical practice guidelines for cardiovascular risk assessment and management for noncardiac surgery. British Journal of Anaesthesia, 127(6), 905-916. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bja.2021.08.016 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bja.2021.08.016
Koffel J. B. (2015). Use of recommended search strategies in systematic reviews and the impact of librarian involvement: a cross-sectional survey of recent authors. PloS one, 10(5), e0125931. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0125931 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0125931
Kung, J. Y., & Kennedy, M. R. (2024). Bibliometric analysis of librarian involvement in systematic reviews at the university of alberta. Journal of the Canadian Health Libraries Association / Journal de l’Association Des Bibliothèques de La Santé Du Canada, 45(1). https://doi.org/10.29173/jchla29696 DOI: https://doi.org/10.29173/jchla29696
Lê, M.L., Neilson, C. J., & Winkler, J. (2023). Benchmarking librarian support of systematic reviews in the sciences, humanities, and social sciences [Preprint]. Open Science Framework. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/v7m9y DOI: https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/v7m9y
Lefebvre C, Glanville J, Briscoe S, Featherstone R, Littlewood A, Metzendorf M-I, Noel-Storr A, Paynter R, Rader T, Thomas J, Wieland LS. (2023). Chapter 4: Searching for and selecting studies. En Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version (version 6.4). Cochrane. https://training.cochrane.org/handbook/current/chapter-04
Li, J., Ge, L., Ma, J., Zeng, Q., Yao, L., An, N., Ding, J., Gan, Y., & Tian, J. (2014). Quality of reporting of systematic reviews published in “evidence-based” Chinese journals. Systematic Reviews, 3, 58. https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-3-58 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-3-58
MacDonald, H., Comer, C., Foster, M., Labelle, P. R., Marsalis, S., Nyhan, K., Premji, Z., Rogers, M., Splenda, R., Stansfield, C., & Young, S. (2024). Searching for studies: A guide to information retrieval for Campbell systematic reviews. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 20(3), e1433. https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1433 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1433
McKeown, S., & Ross-White, A. (2019). Building capacity for librarian support and addressing collaboration challenges by formalizing library systematic review services. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 107(3), 411–419. https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2019.443 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2019.443
Meert, D., Torabi, N., & Costella, J. (2016). Impact of librarians on reporting of the literature searching component of pediatric systematic reviews. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 104(4), 267–277. https://doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.104.4.004 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.104.4.004
Pawliuk, C., Cheng, S., Zheng, A., & Siden, H. (2024). Librarian involvement in systematic reviews was associated with higher quality of reported search methods: A cross-sectional survey. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 166, 111237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2023.111237 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2023.111237
Ramirez, D., Foster, M. J., Kogut, A., & Xiao, D. (2022). Adherence to systematic review standards: Impact of librarian involvement in Campbell Collaboration’s education reviews. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 48(5), 102567. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2022.102567 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2022.102567
Rethlefsen, M. L., Farrell, A. M., Osterhaus Trzasko, L. C., & Brigham, T. J. (2015). Librarian co-authors correlated with higher quality reported search strategies in general internal medicine systematic reviews. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 68(6), 617-626. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.11.025 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.11.025
Ross-White, A. (2016). Librarian Involvement in Systematic Reviews at Queen’s University: An Environmental Scan. Journal of the Canadian Health Libraries Association Journal de l’Association Des bibliothèques De La Santé Du Canada, 37(2). https://doi.org/10.5596/c16-016 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5596/c16-016
Ross-White A. (2021a). An environmental scan of librarian involvement in systematic reviews at Queen's University: 2020 update. The journal of the Canadian Health Libraries Association Journal de l’Association Des bibliothèques De La Santé Du Canada, 42(2), 110–117. https://doi.org/10.29173/jchla29517 DOI: https://doi.org/10.29173/jchla29517
Ross-White, A. (2021b). Search is a verb: Systematic review searching as invisible labor. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 109(3), 505-506. https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2021.1226 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2021.1226
Schellinger, J., Sewell, K., Bloss, J. E., Ebron, T., & Forbes, C. (2021). The effect of librarian involvement on the quality of systematic reviews in dental medicine. PloS one, 16(9), e0256833. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256833 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256833
Spencer, A. J., & Eldredge, J. D. (2018). Roles for librarians in systematic reviews: A scoping review. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 106(1), 46-56. https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2018.82 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2018.82
Toews L. C. (2017). Compliance of systematic reviews in veterinary journals with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) literature search reporting guidelines. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 105(3), 233–239. https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2017.246 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2017.246