Cargando…

Improving peer review of systematic reviews by involving librarians and information specialists: protocol for a randomized controlled trial

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 s...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Rethlefsen, Melissa L., Schroter, Sara, Bouter, Lex M., Moher, David, Ayala, Ana Patricia, Kirkham, Jamie J., Zeegers, Maurice P.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8582191/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34763714
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-021-05738-z
_version_ 1784596932700667904
author Rethlefsen, Melissa L.
Schroter, Sara
Bouter, Lex M.
Moher, David
Ayala, Ana Patricia
Kirkham, Jamie J.
Zeegers, Maurice P.
author_facet Rethlefsen, Melissa L.
Schroter, Sara
Bouter, Lex M.
Moher, David
Ayala, Ana Patricia
Kirkham, Jamie J.
Zeegers, Maurice P.
author_sort Rethlefsen, Melissa L.
collection PubMed
description 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: 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: 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: Open Science Framework. Registered on June 17, 2021, at 10.17605/OSF.IO/W4CK2.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8582191
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-85821912021-11-15 Improving peer review of systematic reviews by involving librarians and information specialists: protocol for a randomized controlled trial Rethlefsen, Melissa L. Schroter, Sara Bouter, Lex M. Moher, David Ayala, Ana Patricia Kirkham, Jamie J. Zeegers, Maurice P. Trials Study Protocol 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: 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: 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: Open Science Framework. Registered on June 17, 2021, at 10.17605/OSF.IO/W4CK2. BioMed Central 2021-11-11 /pmc/articles/PMC8582191/ /pubmed/34763714 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-021-05738-z Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Study Protocol
Rethlefsen, Melissa L.
Schroter, Sara
Bouter, Lex M.
Moher, David
Ayala, Ana Patricia
Kirkham, Jamie J.
Zeegers, Maurice P.
Improving peer review of systematic reviews by involving librarians and information specialists: protocol for a randomized controlled trial
title Improving peer review of systematic reviews by involving librarians and information specialists: protocol for a randomized controlled trial
title_full Improving peer review of systematic reviews by involving librarians and information specialists: protocol for a randomized controlled trial
title_fullStr Improving peer review of systematic reviews by involving librarians and information specialists: protocol for a randomized controlled trial
title_full_unstemmed Improving peer review of systematic reviews by involving librarians and information specialists: protocol for a randomized controlled trial
title_short Improving peer review of systematic reviews by involving librarians and information specialists: protocol for a randomized controlled trial
title_sort improving peer review of systematic reviews by involving librarians and information specialists: protocol for a randomized controlled trial
topic Study Protocol
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8582191/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34763714
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-021-05738-z
work_keys_str_mv AT rethlefsenmelissal improvingpeerreviewofsystematicreviewsbyinvolvinglibrariansandinformationspecialistsprotocolforarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT schrotersara improvingpeerreviewofsystematicreviewsbyinvolvinglibrariansandinformationspecialistsprotocolforarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT bouterlexm improvingpeerreviewofsystematicreviewsbyinvolvinglibrariansandinformationspecialistsprotocolforarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT moherdavid improvingpeerreviewofsystematicreviewsbyinvolvinglibrariansandinformationspecialistsprotocolforarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT ayalaanapatricia improvingpeerreviewofsystematicreviewsbyinvolvinglibrariansandinformationspecialistsprotocolforarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT kirkhamjamiej improvingpeerreviewofsystematicreviewsbyinvolvinglibrariansandinformationspecialistsprotocolforarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT zeegersmauricep improvingpeerreviewofsystematicreviewsbyinvolvinglibrariansandinformationspecialistsprotocolforarandomizedcontrolledtrial