Introduction
Although the first article outlining what was then
referred to as evidence based librarianship (EBL) was published in 1997 (Eldredge), it wasn’t until 2000 that significant articles
outlining how evidence based practice could work in library and information
studies (LIS) were published (Eldredge, 2000a, 2000b,
2000c; Booth, 2000). Jonathan Eldredge published
several keystone articles that year, and in one of those he focused on the
challenges of finding the needed evidence to practice in an
evidence based manner (2000c). Pondering the types of research evidence
available in the LIS literature, specifically health sciences librarianship, Eldredge noted that: “Systematic reviews for EBL levels 1-2
… are not known to currently exist in the health sciences librarianship
literature” (p. 8). Since that time, the evidence based library and information
practice (EBLIP) movement has encouraged the development of publications that
synthesize or appraise existing research, such as the evidence summaries
published in this journal, so that practitioners do not have to do all the work
themselves each and every time they encounter a problem or question. Systematic
reviews have become an important source of information because they both
synthesize the existing research on a topic, as well as critically appraise it
and try to draw conclusions from the total body of quality research evidence.
Grant and Booth (2009) define a systematic review as a
type of review that “seeks to systematically search for, appraise and synthesis
research evidence, often adhering to guidelines on the conduct of a review” (p.
95). Booth and Brice (2004) point out that a systematic review helps us “keep
up-to-date, define the boundaries of what is known and what is not known and
can help us avoid knowing less than has been proven” (p. 111). However,
Urquhart (2010) points out the complexity of applying such methodology to
research in LIS due to the diversity of the research methods in the LIS
knowledge base, as well as the different standpoints taken by the researchers.
Systematic reviews in medicine have mainly used quantitative studies; however
the field of library and information studies also contains a lot of qualitative
research and different types of social sciences methodologies. Brettle (2009) notes that while most systematic reviews in
health care use controlled studies, “it is appropriate for systematic reviews
in the library domain to take a wide view of relevant evidence and include a
variety of designs appropriate to the topic or review question at hand” (p.
45). It is not necessarily as “easy” to work with the various types of LIS
research data within the context of a systematic review. However, more
recently, there has been work done on qualitative synthesis within systematic
reviews, and greater attempts to incorporate different types of research into
such reviews (Dixon-Woods et al., 2006; Barnett-Page & Thomas, 2009).
The Creation of a Wiki to
Track Systematic Reviews
Prompted by a desire to determine the growth of
systematic reviews since the evidence based practice movement in our field
began, I created a wiki (http://lis-systematic-reviews.wikispaces.com) in January 2012 to gather all known systematic
reviews in library and information studies. Having found no similar source or
good way to locate systematic reviews, the wiki was created and those with a
known interest in the topic were invited to be collaborators. Databases such as
Library and Information Science Abstracts (LISA), Library Literature, and
Google Scholar were searched; any articles known to contain citations to
systematic reviews in LIS (Ankem, 2008; Brettle, 2009; Urquhart, 2010; Eldredge,
2004; Koufogiannakis & Crumley, 2006) were
reviewed, and input from colleagues was solicited once a preliminary version of
the wiki was produced.
Upon the suggestion of Andrew Booth, a contributor to
the wiki, it was decided that systematic reviews should meet one of the
following criteria to be included on the wiki site:
- Published
in a library journal
- Authored
by an LIS lead author
- Affiliated
with a library or information unit, or academic library or information department
- Include
studies conducted in a library setting
- Include
at least 25% of included studies from library journals
Description of the
Systematic Reviews Included to Date
As of this writing, there are 37 LIS systematic
reviews cited on the wiki. These systematic reviews were published between 1997
and 2012. Topics cover a wide range, but the vast majority of systematic
reviews fall into the health sciences librarianship field (24). Others pertain
to academic libraries (5), and a number do not focus on a specific type of
library (8).
It
is no surprise that so many systematic reviews are published on health
librarianship topics: EBLIP grew out of the evidence based medicine (EBM)
movement; health sciences librarianship was the first to embrace and apply
evidence based principles; and librarians in health sciences librarianship
would have been familiar with the systematic review methodology, as many
participated in research teams working on systematic reviews in health care.
Journals that have published systematic reviews in LIS
are noted in Table 1. Health Information and Libraries Journal (HILJ)
impressively stands out as the one journal that has published a significant
number of systematic reviews dating back to 2003, and at least one per year
since 2007. HILJ has made a concerted effort for the past number of
years to attract and publish review articles, and identify what type of a
review article it is. Hence, systematic reviews published in HILJ are
quite easy to identify as such.
When categorized by LIS domain (Koufogiannakis,
Slater, & Crumley, 2004), many systematic reviews
were found to be in the areas of reference, education, and professional issues.
The area of information needs research was included in the reference category,
because it was seen as knowledge to
support the reference needs of particular groups. Systematic
reviews relating to information needs comprised about half of all the
systematic reviews in the reference category. Also of note, in the professional
issues category are three systematic reviews assessing the literature on
clinical librarianship programs, and one assessing the literature on informationist programs, together comprising half of the
systematic reviews in this category.
The
number of systematic reviews published in LIS each year seems to slowly be
growing; however the numbers are still small. Of the 37 systematic reviews that
have been identified, only 3 were published prior to 2003. Of those three, one
was published in 1996, and two in 1997. There was then a five year period
between 1998 and 2002 when it seems that no systematic reviews were published.
Since 2003, there have been at least two systematic reviews published every
year, with a high of six published in 2010. These numbers show that while there
were a few systematic reviews prior to the year 2000 when evidence based
practice in LIS began, growth has really occurred since systematic reviews have
been promoted as a useful form of research to assist with evidence based
practice.
Conclusion
The
newly created LIS Systematic Reviews wiki is a starting point for LIS
researchers and practitioners who are looking to see what research summaries on
their topics of interest already exist. Where systematic reviews on a topic
already exist, the review will save the practitioner or researcher much time in
providing an overview of research on that topic up to the point in time in
which it was published. Since systematic reviews are quite detailed, references
to the original research studies will also prove valuable.
Yet,
the number of systematic reviews in LIS is small, and so a review that is on
topic may be elusive. The current small number of systematic reviews provides
research and publishing opportunities for librarians. For example, only one
systematic review was found in each of the categories of collections and
management. The research produced in these areas make them ripe for possible
systematic reviews.
EBLIP is beginning a new Reviews
section within the journal, hoping to provide more of this type of literature
for practitioners, since the editorial team believes it is a valuable form of
research in its own right, and has the potential to be very useful. Reviews do
not have to be systematic reviews to be included in the reviews section, but
given the current numbers of systematic reviews being published,
there is certainly room for more. Whether it be in EBLIP
or another journal, I encourage librarians to consider producing a systematic
review. The wiki site will be continually updated as new reviews are brought to
the author’s attention, and will hopefully remain a useful gathering place for
such content. All suggestions are welcome!
Acknowledgements
The
author would like to thank the following individuals who have contributed
content or ideas toward the creation of the LIS Systematic Reviews wiki: Andrew
Booth, Lorie Kloda, Alison Brettle, and Christine
Urquhart.
References
Ankem,
K. (2008). Evaluation of method in systematic reviews and meta-analyses
published in LIS. Library and Information Research, 32(101), 91-104.
Retrieved 15 May 2012 from http://www.lirgjournal.org.uk/lir/ojs/index.php/lir/article/view/58/118
Barnett-Page,
E., & Thomas, J. (2009). Methods for the synthesis of
qualitative research: A critical review. BMC Medical
Research Methodology, 9(59). doi:10.1186/1471-2288-9-59
Booth,
A. (2000, July 2-5). Librarian
heal thyself: Evidence based
librarianship, useful, practical, desirable? 8th
International Congress on Medical Librarianship. London, UK.
Booth,
A., & Brice, A. (2004). Appraising
the evidence. In A. Booth & A. Brice (Eds.).
Evidence-based practice for information professionals: A handbook. (pp.
104-118). London: Facet.
Brettle,
A. (2009). Systematic reviews and evidence based library and information
practice. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 4(1), 43-50.
Retrieved 15 May 2012 from http://ejournals.library.ualberta.ca/index.php/EBLIP/article/view/5082/5082
Dixon-Woods,
M., Bonas, S., Booth, A., Jones, D. R., Miller, T.,
Sutton, A. J., Shaw, R. L., Smith, J. A., & Young, B. (2006). How can
systematic reviews incorporate qualitative research? A
critical perspective. Qualitative Research, 6(1), 27-44. doi:10.1177/1468794106058867
Eldredge,
J. (1997). Evidence-based librarianship: a commentary for Hypothesis. Hypothesis,
11(3), 4-7. Retrieved 15 May 2012 from http://research.mlanet.org/hypothesis/hypo11-3.pdf
Eldredge,
J. D. (2000a). Evidence-based librarianship: An overview. Bulletin of the
Medical Library Association 88(4), 289-302. Retrieved 15 May 2012 from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC35250/
Eldredge,
J. D. (2000b). Evidence-based librarianship: Formulating EBL questions. Bibliotheca
Medica Canadiana 22(2),
74-77.
Eldredge,
J. D. (2000c). Evidence-based librarianship: Searching for the needed EBL
evidence. Medical Reference Services Quarterly, 19(3), 1-18. doi:10.1300/J115v19n03_01
Eldredge,
J. D. (2004). How good is the evidence base? In A. Booth
& A. Brice (Eds.). Evidence-based practice for information
professionals: A handbook. (pp. 36-48). London: Facet.
Grant,
M., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types of associated methodologies. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 26(2),
91-108.
Koufogiannakis,
D., & Crumley, E. (2006).
Research in librarianship: Issues to consider. Library Hi Tech, 24(3), 324-340. doi:10.1108/07378830610692109
Koufogiannakis,
D., Slater, L., & Crumley, E. (2004). A content analysis of librarianship research. Journal of
Information Science, 30(3), 227-239. doi:10.1177/0165551504044668
Urquhart,
C. (2010). Systematic reviewing, meta-analysis and
meta-synthesis for evidence-based library and information science. Information Research, 15(3), colis708. Retrieved 3
Mar. 2012 from http://InformationR.net/ir/15-3/colis7/colis708.html
2012 Koufogiannakis. This is an Open Access article
distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons‐Attribution‐Noncommercial‐Share Alike License 2.5 Canada (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ca/),
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly attributed, not used for commercial
purposes, and, if transformed, the resulting work is redistributed under the
same or similar license to this one.