Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-cjp7w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-24T13:07:57.187Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Involvement of information specialists and statisticians in systematic reviews

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 April 2023

Siw Waffenschmidt Open the ORCID record for Siw Waffenschmidt [Opens in a new window]  and
Ralf Bender
Siw Waffenschmidt*
Affiliation:
Information Management Department, Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care, Cologne, Germany
Ralf Bender
Affiliation:
Medical Biometry Department, Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care, Cologne, Germany
*
Corresponding author: Siw Waffenschmidt; Email: siw.waffenschmidt@iqwig.de
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background

Systematic reviews (SRs) are usually conducted by a highly specialized group of researchers. The routine involvement of methodological experts is a core methodological recommendation. The present commentary describes the qualifications required for information specialists and statisticians involved in SRs, as well as their tasks, the methodological challenges they face, and potential future areas of involvement.

Tasks and qualifications

Information specialists select the information sources, develop search strategies, conduct the searches, and report the results. Statisticians select the methods for evidence synthesis, assess the risk of bias, and interpret the results. The minimum requirements for their involvement in SRs are a suitable university degree (e.g., in statistics or librarian/information science or an equivalent degree), methodological and content expertise, and several years of experience.

Key arguments

The complexity of conducting SRs has greatly increased due to a massive rise in the amount of available evidence and the number and complexity of SR methods, largely statistical and information retrieval methods. Additional challenges exist in the actual conduct of an SR, such as judging how complex the research question could become and what hurdles could arise during the course of the project.

Conclusion

SRs are becoming more and more complex to conduct and information specialists and statisticians should routinely be involved right from the start of the SR. This increases the trustworthiness of SRs as the basis for reliable, unbiased and reproducible health policy, and clinical decision making.

Keywords

Information servicesbiostatisticsprofessional rolesystematic reviews as topic
Type
Commentary
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 39 , Issue 1 , 2023 , e22
Copyright
© Foundation for Quality and Efficiency in Heath Care, 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

O’Rourke, B, Oortwijn, W, Schuller, T, International Joint Task Group. The new definition of health technology assessment: A milestone in international collaboration. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2020;36:187-190.Google ScholarPubMed
Metzendorf, MI, Featherstone, RM. Ensuring quality as the basis of evidence synthesis: Leveraging information specialists’ knowledge, skills, and expertise. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;4:ED000125.Google ScholarPubMed
Uttley, L, Montgomery, P. The influence of the team in conducting a systematic review. Syst Rev. 2017;6:149.Google Scholar
Waffenschmidt, S, van Amsterdam-Lunze, M, Gomez, RI, et al. Information specialist collaboration in Europe: Collaborative methods, processes, and infrastructure through EUnetHTA. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2020;37:e20.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
European Parliament. Council of the European Union [Internet] Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on health technology assessment and amending Directive 2011/24/EU [cited 28.12.2021]. 2021. Available from: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32021R2282&from=IT.Google Scholar
EUnetHTA 21. [Internet] D5.3.1 – Procedural guidance for appointment of assessors and co-assessors for JCA/CA – guidance document [cited 15.08.2022]. 2022. Available from: https://d2yaq9q3r816qg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/D5.3.1_Appointment_Assessors_CoAssessors-final-version-v1.0.pdf?x69613.Google Scholar
Cochrane Community. [Internet] Information Specialists Portal [cited 15.08.2022]. 2022. Available from: https://community.cochrane.org/organizational-info/resources/resources-groups/information-specialists-portal.Google Scholar
HTAi. [Internet] Interest Group Information Retrieval [cited 15.08.2022]. 2022. Available from: https://htai.org/interest-groups/information-retrieval/.Google Scholar
Littlewood, A, Fenton, C, Bridges, C, et al. [Internet] Cochrane information specialists’ handbook [cited 06.06.2019]. 2018. Available from: https://training.cochrane.org/resource/cochrane-information-specialists-handbook.Google Scholar
Waffenschmidt, S, Hausner, E. Collaborative working to improve searching. In: Levay, P, Craven, J, editors. Systematic searching: Practical ideas for improving results. London: Facet Publishing; 2019. p. 229-248.Google Scholar
McGowan, J, Sampson, M. Systematic reviews need systematic searchers. J Med Libr Assoc. 2005;93:74–80.Google ScholarPubMed
Spencer, AJ, Eldredge, JD. Roles for librarians in systematic reviews: A scoping review. J Med Libr Assoc. 2018;106:46–56.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Booth, A, Beecroft, C. The SPECTRAL project: A training needs analysis for providers of clinical question answering services. Health Info Libr J. 2010;27:198–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tran, A. In-house peer supported literature search training: A public health perspective. Health Info Libr J. 2017;34:258–262.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wikipedia. [Internet] Master of Library and Information Science [cited 07.12.2022]. 2022. Available from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_of_Library_and_Information_Science.Google Scholar
Knüttel, H, Krause, E, Semmler-Schmetz, M, Reimann, I, Metzendorf, M-I. Health sciences libraries in Germany: New directions. Health Info Libr J. 2020;37:83–88.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ellenberg, JH. Biostatistical collaboration in medical research. Biometrics. 1990;46:1–18; discussion 19-32.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zapf, A, Huebner, M, Rauch, G, Kieser, M. What makes a biostatistician? Stat Med. 2019;38:695–701.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zapf, A, Rauch, G, Kieser, M. Why do you need a biostatistician? BMC Med Res Methodol. 2020;20:23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerlinger, C, Edler, L, Friede, T, et al. Considerations on what constitutes a ‘qualified statistician’ in regulatory guidelines. Stat Med. 2012;31:1303–1305.Google ScholarPubMed
Higgins, JPT, Li, T, Deeks, JJ. Choosing effect measures and computing estimates of effect. In: JPT, Higgins, Thomas, J, Chandler, J, Cumpston, M, Li, T, Page, MJ, Welch, VA, editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell; 2019. p. 143-176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Higgins, JPT, Savović, J, Page, MJ, Elbers, RG, Sterne, JAC. Assessing risk of bias in a randomized trial. In: Higgins, JPT, Thomas, J, Chandler, J, Cumpston, M, Li, T, Page, MJ, Welch, VA, editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell; 2019. p. 205–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deeks, JJ, Higgins, JPT, Altman, DG. Analysing data and undertaking meta-analyses. In: Higgins, JPT, Thomas, J, Chandler, J, Cumpston, M, Li, T, Page, MJ, Welch, VA, editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell; 2019. p. 241–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chaimani, A, Caldwell, D, Li, T. Undertaking network meta-analyses. In: Higgins, JPT, Thomas, J, Chandler, J, Cumpston, M, Li, T, Page, MJ, Welch, VA, editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell; 2019. p. 285–320.Google Scholar
Schünemann, HJH, Higgins, JPT, Vist, GE, et al. Completing ‘Summary of findings’ tables and grading the certainty of the evidence. In: Higgins, JPT, Thomas, J, Chandler, J, Cumpston, M, Li, T, Page, MJ, Welch, VA, editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell; 2019. p. 375–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feldmann, U. Qualification of the responsible trial statistician. Biom J. 2002;44:117–118.3.0.CO;2-Q>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lefebvre, C, Glanville, J, Wieland, LS, Coles, B, Weightman, AL. Methodological developments in searching for studies for systematic reviews: Past, present and future? Syst Rev. 2013;2:78.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shea, BJ, Reeves, BC, Wells, G, et al. AMSTAR 2: A critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ. 2017;358:j4008.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Page, MJ, McKenzie, JE, Bossuyt, PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rethlefsen, ML, Kirtley, S, Waffenschmidt, S, et al. PRISMA-S: An extension to the PRISMA statement for reporting literature searches in systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2021;10:39.Google Scholar