Yuhong Yuan
I am currently an Adjunct Professor at Western University, a Research Associate at London Health Sciences Centre, and a Part-Time Assistant Professor at McMaster University. My expertise spans health research methodology, clinical epidemiology, and guideline methodology for various international organizations. Previously, I served as a Cochrane Information Specialist for ten years and a Managing Editor for four years for the Cochrane Gut group. Before immigrating to Canada, I worked as a Gastroenterologist in China for seven years.
Session
๐๐๐๐ค ๐จ๐ ๐๐ง๐ฏ๐จ๐ฅ๐ฏ๐๐ฆ๐๐ง๐ญ ๐จ๐ ๐๐๐๐ข๐๐๐ฅ ๐๐ข๐๐ซ๐๐ซ๐ข๐๐ง๐ฌ / ๐๐ง๐๐จ๐ซ๐ฆ๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง ๐๐ฉ๐๐๐ข๐๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ๐ญ๐ฌ ๐ข๐ง ๐๐ฒ๐ฌ๐ญ๐๐ฆ๐๐ญ๐ข๐ ๐๐๐ฏ๐ข๐๐ฐ๐ฌ ๐๐ฎ๐๐ฆ๐ข๐ญ๐ญ๐๐ ๐ญ๐จ ๐ ๐๐ข๐ ๐ก-๐๐๐ง๐ค๐ข๐ง๐ ๐๐๐๐ข๐๐๐ฅ ๐๐จ๐ฎ๐ซ๐ง๐๐ฅ: ๐๐ง๐ฌ๐ข๐ ๐ก๐ญ๐ฌ ๐๐ซ๐จ๐ฆ ๐๐ง ๐๐๐ข๐ญ๐จ๐ซ๐ข๐๐ฅ ๐๐จ๐๐ซ๐ ๐๐๐ฆ๐๐๐ซ ๐๐ง๐ ๐๐๐ฏ๐ข๐๐ฐ๐๐ซ
Yuhong Yuan 1,2
1. Department of Medicine, Western University, London, Ontario. 2. Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario.
๐๐๐๐ค๐ ๐ซ๐จ๐ฎ๐ง๐: A rigorous literature search is essential for systematic reviews (SRs) quality. However, many medical journals lack the resources to thoroughly peer-review search methods and strategies. The extent of medical librarians/information specialists' (MLIS) involvement in developing literature searches is often unclear.
๐๐๐ญ๐ก๐จ๐๐ฌ: As a former Cochrane information specialist and a researcher with over 20 years at various universities, I have served as an editorial board member and technical reviewer for a high-ranking medical journal A for 13 years. In this role, I critically assess all submitted SRs, including their search methods and strategies, using the PRISMA-S checklist, Cochrane guidelines, and the PRESS peer review checklist. This abstract summarizes my analysis of 90 SRs I reviewed for Journal A in 2024, documented prospectively without a second reviewer to maintain confidentiality.
๐๐๐ฌ๐ฎ๐ฅ๐ญ๐ฌ: Of 90 SRs, only 6 (7%) included an MLIS as a co-author, and 10 (11%) mentioned MLIS assistance, with only three MLIS names formally acknowledged. Although most SRs claimed PRISMA compliance, 18 (20%) failed to submit complete search strategies for at least one database. I provided comments on search methods (1-9 points, median 5) for each SR that received an editorial decision). 20 SRs (22%) were accepted with major revisions. All of the 19 SRs that had submitted a revised version incorporated the suggested revisions; 4 (21%) of them included more studies following an updated search.
๐๐จ๐ง๐๐ฅ๐ฎ๐ฌ๐ข๐จ๐ง: MLIS involvement in SRs is limited and often inadequately acknowledged, underscoring the importance of rigorous peer review at all stages.