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.
Intervention
𝐋𝐚𝐜𝐤 𝐨𝐟 𝐈𝐧𝐯𝐨𝐥𝐯𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐌𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐋𝐢𝐛𝐫𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐚𝐧𝐬 / 𝐈𝐧𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐒𝐩𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐒𝐲𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐜 𝐑𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐞𝐰𝐬 𝐒𝐮𝐛𝐦𝐢𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐚 𝐇𝐢𝐠𝐡-𝐑𝐚𝐧𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐌𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐉𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐧𝐚𝐥: 𝐈𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭𝐬 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐚𝐧 𝐄𝐝𝐢𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐁𝐨𝐚𝐫𝐝 𝐌𝐞𝐦𝐛𝐞𝐫 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐑𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐞𝐰𝐞𝐫
Yuhong Yuan 1,2
1. Department of Medicine, Western University, London, Ontario. 2. Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario.
𝐁𝐚𝐜𝐤𝐠𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝: 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.
𝐌𝐞𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐝𝐬: 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.
𝐑𝐞𝐬𝐮𝐥𝐭𝐬: 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.
𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐜𝐥𝐮𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧: MLIS involvement in SRs is limited and often inadequately acknowledged, underscoring the importance of rigorous peer review at all stages.