PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
UNASSIGNED: The study aimed to analyze the documented role of a librarian in published systematic reviews and meta-analyses whose registered protocols mentioned librarian involvement. The intention was to identify how, or if, librarians\' involvement was formally documented, how their contributions were described, and if there were any potential connections between this documentation and basic metrics of search reproducibility and quality.
UNASSIGNED: Reviews whose PROSPERO protocols were registered in 2017 and 2018 and that also specifically mentioned a librarian were analyzed for documentation of the librarian\'s involvement. Language describing the librarian and their involvement was gathered and coded, and additional information about the review, including search strategy details, was also collected.
UNASSIGNED: A total of 209 reviews were found and analyzed. Of these, 28% had a librarian co-author, 41% named a librarian in the acknowledgements section, and 78% mentioned the contribution of a librarian within the body of the review. However, mentions of a librarian within the review were often generic (\"a librarian\") and in 31% of all reviews analyzed no librarian was specified by name. In 9% of the reviews, there was no reference to a librarian found at all. Language about librarians\' contributions usually only referenced their work with search strategy development. Reviews with librarian coauthors typically described the librarian\'s work in active voice centering the librarian, unlike reviews without librarian coauthors. Most reviews had reproducible search strategies that utilized subject headings and keywords, but some had flawed or missing strategies.
UNASSIGNED: Even among this set of reviews, where librarian involvement was specified at the protocol level, librarians\' contributions were often described with minimal, or even no, language in the final published review. Much room for improvement appears to remain in terms of how librarians\' work is documented.
UNASSIGNED: Reviews whose PROSPERO protocols were registered in 2017 and 2018 and that also specifically mentioned a librarian were analyzed for documentation of the librarian\'s involvement. Language describing the librarian and their involvement was gathered and coded, and additional information about the review, including search strategy details, was also collected.
UNASSIGNED: A total of 209 reviews were found and analyzed. Of these, 28% had a librarian co-author, 41% named a librarian in the acknowledgements section, and 78% mentioned the contribution of a librarian within the body of the review. However, mentions of a librarian within the review were often generic (\"a librarian\") and in 31% of all reviews analyzed no librarian was specified by name. In 9% of the reviews, there was no reference to a librarian found at all. Language about librarians\' contributions usually only referenced their work with search strategy development. Reviews with librarian coauthors typically described the librarian\'s work in active voice centering the librarian, unlike reviews without librarian coauthors. Most reviews had reproducible search strategies that utilized subject headings and keywords, but some had flawed or missing strategies.
UNASSIGNED: Even among this set of reviews, where librarian involvement was specified at the protocol level, librarians\' contributions were often described with minimal, or even no, language in the final published review. Much room for improvement appears to remain in terms of how librarians\' work is documented.
摘要：
■该研究旨在分析图书馆员在已发表的系统评价和荟萃分析中的作用，其注册协议提到图书馆员的参与。目的是确定如何，或者，图书馆员的参与被正式记录，如何描述他们的贡献，以及此文档与搜索可重复性和质量的基本指标之间是否存在任何潜在的联系。
■对PROSPERO协议在2017年和2018年注册并且还特别提到图书馆员的评论进行了分析，以了解图书馆员的参与情况。描述图书馆员及其参与的语言被收集和编码，以及有关审查的其他信息，包括搜索策略细节，也被收集了。
■共发现并分析了209条评论。其中,28%的人有图书管理员合著者，41%的人在致谢部分指定了图书管理员，78%的人提到图书馆员在审查中的贡献。然而,在评论中提到图书馆员通常是通用的（“图书馆员”），在所有分析的评论中，有31％没有指定图书馆员的名字。在9%的评论中，根本没有发现图书馆员的参考。关于图书馆员的贡献的语言通常只引用他们在搜索策略开发中的工作。与图书馆员的评论合著者通常以图书馆员为中心的主动声音描述图书馆员的工作，不像没有图书馆员合著者的评论。大多数评论都有可重复的搜索策略，利用主题标题和关键词，但有些策略有缺陷或缺失。
■即使在这组评论中，图书馆员的参与是在协议级别指定的，图书馆员的贡献通常被描述得很少，或者甚至没有，最终发表的评论中的语言。在如何记录图书馆员的工作方面，似乎还有很大的改进空间。
■对PROSPERO协议在2017年和2018年注册并且还特别提到图书馆员的评论进行了分析，以了解图书馆员的参与情况。描述图书馆员及其参与的语言被收集和编码，以及有关审查的其他信息，包括搜索策略细节，也被收集了。
■共发现并分析了209条评论。其中,28%的人有图书管理员合著者，41%的人在致谢部分指定了图书管理员，78%的人提到图书馆员在审查中的贡献。然而,在评论中提到图书馆员通常是通用的（“图书馆员”），在所有分析的评论中，有31％没有指定图书馆员的名字。在9%的评论中，根本没有发现图书馆员的参考。关于图书馆员的贡献的语言通常只引用他们在搜索策略开发中的工作。与图书馆员的评论合著者通常以图书馆员为中心的主动声音描述图书馆员的工作，不像没有图书馆员合著者的评论。大多数评论都有可重复的搜索策略，利用主题标题和关键词，但有些策略有缺陷或缺失。
■即使在这组评论中，图书馆员的参与是在协议级别指定的，图书馆员的贡献通常被描述得很少，或者甚至没有，最终发表的评论中的语言。在如何记录图书馆员的工作方面，似乎还有很大的改进空间。
