Evidence Syntheses (Scoping, systematic, & other types of reviews)

This page includes resources and continuing education opportunities related to expert searching and evidence syntheses that were created by Informationists at the U-M Taubman Health Sciences Library. If you have questions about this page or the resources on it, please contact Whitney Townsend (whitneyt@umich.edu).

Resources (jumps to section on this page):

• Search 101 Database Cheat Sheet
• Systematic Search Tracking using Airtable: Templates & Webinar
• Addressing antiquated, non-standard, exclusionary, and potentially offensive terms in evidence syntheses and systematic searches
• DistillerSR <--> Endnote full text upload instructions (work in progress!)
• A competency framework for librarians involved in systematic reviews. (Article + Competency Matrix)
• Piecing together systematic reviews and other evidence syntheses 2nd Ed. (Book)
• UX Caucus Database Tips: Bite-sized tips for expert searchers
• Evidence Synthesis Integration Plan Template (from MLA/SLA 2023)
• Behind the Scenes of "A Critical Analysis of Peer Reviewer Comments on Systematic Review Search Strategies" Webinar (2024)
  • Systematic Search Peer Review Rubric - Manuscript stage (search completed) (Google Docs version; PDF on webinar page)

Courses & Practice

• Systematic Reviews for Librarians Workshop
• EdX Course: Advanced Literature Searching in the Health Sciences
• Taubman Library Talks webinar series (not all systematic review related)
• Systematic Search Practice Sets (open access Canvas site)

The Search 101 Database Cheat Sheet was originally developed as an add-on document for use by participants of the Systematic Reviews for Librarians workshop. The Google version of the document is updated regularly as changes occur. The Excel version is updated as of its last indicated date. The Cheat Sheet includes the following databases: PubMed, Ovid Medline, Embase (Wiley), Scopus, Web of Science Core Collection (U-M instance), CINAHL (Ebsco), and Cochrane DSR (Wiley).

If you notice an error, please let us know by messaging us at SystematicReviewCourse@umich.edu

Airtable is a software that allows users manage processes, planning, and workflows by creating databases built by linking spreadsheets. Informationists at the Taubman Health Sciences Library built a custom Airtable base to manage evidence synthesis project requests and to track their time and resourcing over the course of these often years-long projects. Review the links below for a closer look at how U-M uses Airtable in this way, and to download and customize a base of your own using a template.

This document provides suggested processes and wording for addressing the inclusion of antiquated, non-standard, exclusionary, and potentially offensive terms in evidence syntheses and systematic searches. This project was inspired by the experiences of our Informationists and #medlibs Twitter discussions around the development and reporting of systematic search strategies. The suggested wording provided is intended to be a template only, and should be adapted as appropriate for a given topic or project.

This procedure allows users of DistillerSR to bulk upload pdfs for full text level screening. Users need to import citations from Endnote into DistillerSR, export the citations for full text screening from DistillerSR into Endnote, use Endnote to find and attach the appropriate pdfs, then batch upload the pdfs to DistillerSR. This relies on matching the original RefIDs in Endnote. These instructions are a work in progress, and are only available via Google Drive at present.

This paper presents a set of core competencies for librarians who are involved in systematic reviews. Authored by a group of THL Informationists and published in JMLA in 2017, it won the Ida and George Eliot Prize in 2018 as the "work published in the preceding calendar year that has been judged most effective in furthering medical librarianship."

The SR Competency Matrix, developed by Kate Saylor, allows an individual or group to enter their comfort/skill level with the various competencies and indicators, creating a "heat map" that identifies areas of expertise and areas for growth.

Taubman Health Sciences Library Director Nancy Allee and Informationists Patricia F. Anderson, Emily Capellari, and Whitney Townsend have co-authored chapters in the 2022 edition of "Piecing Together Systematic Reviews and Other Evidence Syntheses: A Guide for Librarians" (eds Margaret Foster and Sarah Jewell). Patricia partnered with evidence synthesis expert, Professor Andrew Booth (University of Sheffield), on "Chapter 4: Question Frameworks;" and Nancy, Emily, and Whitney co-authored "Chapter 6: Project and Data Management."

In the previous 2017 edition of this book, titled "Assembling the pieces of a systematic review : guide for librarians", Nancy Allee, Mark MacEachern, and Whitney Townsend co-authored chapter 4 "Planning the review, part 2 : team dynamics and data management."

Bite-size tips for expert searchers. (Kate Saylor, U-M Informationistst, co-founder with Andy Hickner)

"Greetings, searchers! This blog is the home for a new initiative of the User Experience Caucus of the Medical Library Association: the Database Tip Sheets. The Tip Sheets are bite-size tips for expert searchers on how to search more efficiently."

Evidence synthesis integration and systematic review services often look different at various organizations due to differences in goals, priorities, resourcing, experience, and demand. In order to help you plan or adapt your integration in evidence synthesis projects at your institution, Whitney Townsend and Mark MacEachern created this template for inclusion in the Information Services Immersion Session "Systematic Review Services: What Works Best for You and Your Users?" at MLA/SLA 2023 in Detroit, Michigan. It is available to use and adapt as you see fit.

This 2024 webinar presents the unpublished results of a project that used open peer review documentation to analyze peer reviewer comments on the search strategies in systematic reviews. As part of the project, the team developed an adapted checklist (incorporating PRESS and PRISMA-S) designed to address key "red flags" for search validity that should be questioned and commented on by a peer reviewer.

• Behind the Scenes of "A Critical Analysis of Peer Reviewer Comments on Systematic Review Search Strategies" Webinar Page
• Systematic Search Peer Review Rubric - Manuscript stage (search completed) - Google Sheet version (feel free to make a copy!)