DIVISION OF LIBRARY SERVICES | OFFICE OF RESEARCH SERVICES | NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH Development of a Class for Researchers on Best Practices for Conducting and Reporting Systematic Reviews Susan M. PilchKaren Smith Mary RyanNancy Terry Pamela SievingAnne White-Olson

Overview  Why we did this  History and development  Evaluations  Current status  The future?? MLA/One Health Boston 2013 NIHL

NIH: the Clinical Center MLA/One Health Boston 2013 NIHL

NIH Library Entrance MLA/One Health Boston 2013 NIHL

Why did we create this class?  Increasing demand for systematic review support  2000: : : : so far: 53  Requests were often uninformed about standards for and work involved in SR research  Library staff interested in improving our work product  Nearly all librarians and informationists have completed the University of Pittsburgh course University of Pittsburg HSLS Systematic Review CourseUniversity of Pittsburg HSLS Systematic Review Course  NIHL has a well-developed teaching program and class enrollment system into which we could slot this class

NIH Library reading room; training rooms in background

NIH Library training room MLA/One Health Boston 2013 NIHL

History of the development of the class  April 2011: Project team, with charge: Develop training on conducting systematic reviews (by August!!) Later: formal service to assist in the conduct of systematic reviews  Options: Series of Web-based tutorials Class  Team effort : Sections developed by subgroups

Course overview n Importance of systematic reviews in research and medicine n Differences between narrative reviews, systematic reviews, meta-analyses n Selecting the systematic review team n Developing the systematic review protocol n Conducting the literature search n Steps for completing the systematic review

Ready to roll  First class taught November 3, 2011  Taught four times in 2012, once in 2013  3 instructors  2013: added content on meta-analyses and RevMan (Cochrane) software  Enrollment: 20-28

Changes n Retirements n Added instructor, who brought expertise in meta- analyses and RevMan software (Cochrane) n Updates planned: ä Examples (bored with cannabinoids?) ä Organization ä Clean up content: some duplication, some lack of clarity

Evaluation  Standard NIHL instruction evaluation form:  Clarity of instruction  Instructors’ knowledge  Responsiveness to questions  Handouts  Objectives met  Physical classroom suitability  Student knowledge MLA/One Health Boston 2013 NIHL

Comments  Would attend advanced course with more examples  Organize a workshop at NIH  Next step: more detailed PubMed (MeSH terms, etc.)  Introduce software to do meta-analysis  Include SRs that are not of RCTs/not clinical  Thank you so much for this training!  More in-depth could be offered as a follow-up to this class  Excellent seminar…adding practical exercises would be great

Additional comments  I learned that I should look into systematic review  Do advanced classes on standards, tools, etc.  Hands on please [stated many ways]  It was wonderful to learn about such a valuable resource  New; I didn’t know anything about this  Also comments about handouts, audio system (decreasing over time)

Current status and impressions n Ready-to-go content and instructors n Preparation and teaching clarified our roles, identified areas of weakness n Collegiality within team of instructors n 10 follow-up requests for assistance or advice MLA/One Health Boston 2013 NIHL

Back to the future n Additional related classes ä Searching for EBM and Systematic Reviews n More marketing of class n Marketing of our new SR support service n Evaluation metrics for our work ä Co-authorship ä Acknowledgements ä Referrals n Fee for service?

Co-authors

An ORS Service Thank you! CampusGuide for systematic reviews