Librarians as methodological peer reviewers for systematic reviews: results of an online survey.

BACKGROUND: Developing a comprehensive, reproducible literature search is the basis for a high-quality systematic review (SR). Librarians and information professionals, as expert searchers, can improve the quality of systematic review searches, methodology, and reporting. Likewise, journal editors and authors often seek to improve the quality of published SRs and other evidence syntheses through peer review. Health sciences librarians contribute to systematic review production but little is known about their involvement in peer reviewing SR manuscripts. METHODS: This survey aimed to assess how frequently librarians are asked to peer review systematic review manuscripts and to determine characteristics associated with those invited to review. The survey was distributed to a purposive sample through three health sciences information professional listservs. RESULTS: There were 291 complete survey responses. Results indicated that 22% (n = 63) of respondents had been asked by journal editors to peer review systematic review or meta-analysis manuscripts. Of the 78% (n = 228) of respondents who had not already been asked, 54% (n = 122) would peer review, and 41% (n = 93) might peer review. Only 4% (n = 9) would not review a manuscript. Respondents had peer reviewed manuscripts for 38 unique journals and believed they were asked because of their professional expertise. Of respondents who had declined to peer review (32%, n = 20), the most common explanation was "not enough time" (60%, n = 12) followed by "lack of expertise" (50%, n = 10).The vast majority of respondents (95%, n = 40) had "rejected or recommended a revision of a manuscript| after peer review. They based their decision on the "search methodology" (57%, n = 36), "search write-up" (46%, n = 29), or "entire article" (54%, n = 34). Those who selected "other" (37%, n = 23) listed a variety of reasons for rejection, including problems or errors in the PRISMA flow diagram; tables of included, excluded, and ongoing studies; data extraction; reporting; and pooling methods. CONCLUSIONS: Despite being experts in conducting literature searches and supporting SR teams through the review process, few librarians have been asked to review SR manuscripts, or even just search strategies; yet many are willing to provide this service. Editors should involve experienced librarians with peer review and we suggest some strategies to consider.

Patient, Family, and Community Advisory Councils in Health Care and Research: a Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Patient-centeredness is a characteristic of high-quality medical care and requires engaging community members in health systems' decision-making. One key patient engagement strategy is patient, family, and community advisory boards/councils (PFACs), yet the evidence to guide PFACs is lacking. Systematic reviews on patient engagement may benefit from patient input, but feasibility is unclear. METHODS: A team of physicians, researchers, and a PFAC member conducted a systematic review to examine the impact of PFACs on health systems and describe optimal strategies for PFAC conduct. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Scopus, and Social Science Citation Index from inception through September 2016, as well as pre-identified websites. Two reviewers independently screened and abstracted data from studies, then assessed randomized studies for risk of bias and observational studies for quality using standardized measures. We performed a realist synthesis-which asks what works, for whom, under what circumstances-of abstracted data via 12 monthly meetings between investigators and two feedback sessions with a hospital-based PFAC. RESULTS: Eighteen articles describing 16 studies met study criteria. Randomized studies demonstrated moderate to high risk of bias and observational studies demonstrated poor to fair quality. Studies engaged patients at multiple levels of the health care system and suggested that in-person deliberation with health system leadership was most effective. Studies involving patient engagement in research focused on increasing study participation. PFAC recruitment was by nomination (n = 11) or not described (n = 5). No common measure of patient, family, or community engagement was identified. Realist synthesis was enriched by feedback from PFAC members. DISCUSSION: PFACs engage communities through individual projects but evidence of their impact on outcomes is lacking. A paucity of randomized controlled trials or high-quality observational studies guide strategies for engagement through PFACs. Standardized measurement tools for engagement are needed. Strategies for PFAC recruitment should be investigated and reported. PFAC members can feasibly contribute to systematic reviews. REGISTRATION AND FUNDING SOURCE: A protocol for record eligibility was developed a priori and was registered in the PROSPERO database of systematic reviews (registration number CRD42016052817). The Department of Veterans Affairs' Office of Academic Affiliations, through the National Clinician Scholars Program, funded this study.

Impact of price display on provider ordering: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Displaying order prices to physicians is 1 potential strategy to reduce unnecessary health expenditures, but its impact on patterns of care is unclear. OBJECTIVE: To review characteristics of previous price display interventions, impact on order costs and volume, effects on patient safety, acceptability to physicians, and the quality of this evidence. DESIGN: Systematic review of studies that showed numeric prices of laboratory tests, imaging studies, or medications to providers in real time during the ordering process and evaluated the impact on provider ordering. Two investigators independently extracted data for each study and evaluated study quality using a modified Downs and Black checklist. RESULTS: Of 1494 studies reviewed, 19 met inclusion criteria, including 5 randomized trials, 13 pre-post intervention studies, and 1 time series analysis. Studies were published between 1983 and 2014. Of 15 studies reporting the quantitative impact of price display on aggregate order costs or volume, 10 demonstrated a statistically significant decrease in the intervention group. Price display was found to decrease aggregate order costs (9 of 13 studies) more frequently than order volume (3 of 8 studies). Patient safety was evaluated in 5 studies and was unaffected by price display. Provider acceptability tended to be positive, although evidence was limited. Study quality was mixed, with checklist scores ranging from 5/21 to 20/21. CONCLUSIONS: Provider price display likely reduces order costs to a modest degree. Patient safety appeared unchanged, though evidence was limited. More high-quality evidence is needed to confirm these findings within a modern context.

The personal librarian program: an evaluation of a Cushing/Whitney Medical Library outreach initiative.

The Cushing/Whitney Medical Library (CWML) at the Yale School of Medicine has offered a "Personal Librarian" (PL) program to medical center students since 1996. This outreach program matches students to a professional librarian as they matriculate, a relationship that is maintained until the student graduates. PLs offer individualized assistance for almost anything-from interpreting library policies and procedures to helping locate materials to assisting with thesis research. The program requires nominal effort on the part of the librarians, making it possible to expand the program to include other student groups. A recent survey revealed that students are extremely satisfied with the program and would generally welcome more contact from their PL.