Introduction
Health inequalities is a rapidly expanding field of research which can make it difficult for researchers and policymakers to stay up to date. A multi-disciplinary team spanning three universities with expertise in computer science, public health and information science has created a new, freely-available database: Finding Accessible Inequalities Research in Public Health (the FAIR Database) to explore research specifically addressing this area.
Aim
To create a new, sustainable database of health inequalities research, indexed according to the PROGRESS-Plus criteria (O’Neill et al 2014). These categories represent the key dimensions of inequality including Place of residence, Race, Occupation, Gender/Sex, Religion, Education, Socioeconomic status and Social capital (PLUS personal characteristics, relationships and time factors).
Method/ Program Description

A systematic search of 14 resources identified 66 reviews to extract Progress Plus attributes for 2190 studies, which were used to train a machine learning application. This algorithm was subsequently used to automatically index new research outputs imported from by Open Alex by study type (e.g. systematic review, observational study) and ProgressPlus categories. Automatic indexing helps to secure the future sustainability of the database beyond the end of the project’s funding, ensuring it remains a useful and current resource for health equity researchers. To allow for browsing as well as searching, Wikipedia categories were used to organise records into a subject hierarchy.

Results/ Evaluation

By using a source repository of scholarly literature from across the internet, the content of the FAIR database is multidisciplinary and not constrained by the usual subject boundaries of other databases. Our own initial testing of the machine learning algorithm finds that it produces accurate indexing results, correctly identifying the study type and ProgressPlus category in the majority of cases but with some variation across the various study types and ProgressPlus categories included (F-measures for the study design classifier ranged between 0.62 and 0.99 and between 0.28 and 0.81 for the ProgressPlus classifier). User evaluation will be conducted in early 2022 and we expect to be able to report on this by the time of the conference.

Conclusion

The FAIR database enables easier discovery of research into health equities, whether through searching or browsing using the PROGRESS-Plus criteria. Automatic importation and indexing of new records from Open Alex (or similar repository) will enable the database to remain up-to-date. This is a work in progress but we will be able to demonstrate the tool and present initial user feedback.

Human Touch (Recommended)

The Covid-19 pandemic has exacerbated existing health inequalities and put them to the top of the agenda for governments across Europe. By making research in this area easier to find, we hope to save researchers’ time and increase capacity, enabling policymakers to make better evidence-informed decisions. Moreover, this project has demonstrated the potential to develop projects across disciplines and between institutions, drawing on expertise across those networks. We hope this partnership will continue to deliver further successful projects in the future.

Introduction

Search methods for systematic reviews and other evidence syntheses should be transparent, reproducible and comprehensive. The PRISMA-S checklist requires full search strategies are reported for each bibliographic database, however, these do not provide any indication of the efficiency of the search strategy, or the usefulness of individual search lines for identifying studies for inclusion.

It is becoming increasingly important to evaluate search strategies for evidence syntheses, particularly for those that require regular updates or for ‘living’ reviews, to ensure search strategies are effective and efficient, and to minimise future screening load.

Aim

To identify a simple method for search strategy evaluation and consider how Information Specialists (ISs) can report and share search strategy evaluations.

Method

Searches were conducted to identify systematic reviews (SRs), randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and economic evaluations for an evidence gap map on peer support interventions. Search strategies included a combination of free-text and controlled vocabulary terms.

A search summary table was created to highlight where included studies were found. This indicated 27 of the 32 included SRs, and 50 of the 61 included RCTs were retrieved by the original Ovid MEDLINE searches.

Test sets were created for included references using PubMed identifiers in Ovid MEDLINE. These were used to evaluate each line of the SR and RCT topic search strategies, in order to identify the lines of the search strategy that retrieved included or unique references, and the simplest combination of search terms that would retrieve all included references.
Results

Initial findings indicate that a simple strategy (using only two search lines) would identify all included SRs, whereas a broader range of terminology (12 search lines) is needed to capture all included RCTs. 18 search lines in the peer support strategy for SRs retrieved at least one included SR. 26 search lines in the RCT search strategy picked up at least one included RCT.

We will present further findings from our evaluation of search strategies conducted for an evidence map.

Conclusion

The conduct and reporting of a search strategy evaluation, in addition to a search summary table, may improve search efficiency and minimise screening load for reviews that require frequent updates. These can be time-consuming tasks, however, search strategy evaluation provides opportunities for ISs to reflect on current practice and gather evidence about the value of different search approaches. Reporting details of search strategy evaluation ensures transparency and reproducibility of search methods, and may also guide ISs working on similar topics to make informed decisions about selection of search terms. The IS community could work together to develop simple and effective methods to evaluate search strategies and consider how this knowledge can best be shared.

The authors intend to conduct further research comparing the performance of ‘evaluated’ search strategies with our original search strategies. We will assess the efficiency and number needed to screen for both strategies to inform updates of the living evidence map of peer support interventions.

Introduction

Study selection is one of the major time-consuming tasks in the evidence synthesis process because of the necessity to screen large search results. Therefore, reducing the number or records retrieved is an important way to save time when conducting rapid reviews (RRs). The recently published MEDLINE search filters by Waffenschmidt et al.¹ are a promising way to reduce search results when searching for non-randomised controlled studies (cNRS). While they are less sensitive than comparable filters for randomized controlled studies, it is unclear if missed studies would affect review conclusions.
Aim

Based on RR searches that used no study type filters and included cNRS, we retrospectively examined the impact of using the cNRS-filters for Ovid MEDLINE.

We analysed:

1. The proportion of cNRS included in the reviews that would still be found by the MEDLINE search when the Waffenschmidt filters (sensitivity or specificity focused) are applied,
2. The reduction in study selection workload due to a smaller search result,
3. Whether missed studies would have been retrieved by non-Boolean searches,
4. The impact of missing studies on the conclusions of the original review.

Method

We screened RRs completed at our institution between 2018 and 2021, identifying those that included cNRS and applied no study type filters. For each eligible RR, we identified which cNRS had been found by the original MEDLINE search, and if they would still be found when the search filters were applied. We then checked the reduction of the records retrieved and calculated the potential reduction in screening time. We also checked if missed references would have been found by reference list screening and PubMed similar articles searches used in the original RR. Finally, we are currently assessing if missed studies would have changed the conclusions of the RR.
Results

These are preliminary results; the final analysis will be completed in early 2022.

21 RRs fit our inclusion criteria and included 64 cNRS. The best sensitivity filter (Fsens) retrieved all included studies in 14 reviews, compared to 8 reviews with the best specificity filter (Fspec). Fsens lead to an average reduction of 43% (21%-75%) in retrieved records, Fspec to 56% (39-84%). This represents an average reduction in screening time of 3 hours per reviewer when using Fsens and 4 hours for Fspec. Of 8 studies missed by Fsens, 5 were found by the non-Boolean searches. Fspec missed 17 studies, 10 were found by non-Boolean searches. Using Fspec would have lead to no conclusion being possible in 2 RRs.

Conclusion

Based on preliminary results, using Fsens would reduce screening time without negatively impacting RR conclusions. Additionally, non-Boolean methods were able to retrieve more than half of the studies missed by each filter.

Human Touch

Our rapid review services provide hospital personnel with timely and concise evidence syntheses. By improving our workflows, we aim to provide better support for them.

Reference: ¹ Waffenschmidt, et al. Development and validation of study filters for identifying controlled non-randomized studies in PubMed and Ovid MEDLINE. Res Syn Meth. 2020; 11: 617– 626.

Introduction
Academic and medical librarians are increasingly being invited to support or co-author knowledge syntheses at University of British Columbia. Arising out of a need to discuss best practices, librarians and interested individuals created a Systematic & Scoping Reviews Community of Practice (SR CoP) at UBC.
Aim

A community of practice is a group of people who "share a concern or a passion for something they do and learn how to do it better as they interact regularly". The concept was first proposed by cognitive anthropologist Jean Lave and educational theorist Etienne Wenger in their 1991 book Situated Learning. The aim of this session is to explore how the SR CoP was developed at UBC and how members adere to Lave and Wenger's definition.

Method/ Program Description
The evolution of the SR CoP will be described as well as the issues, concerns, successes and novel insights.
Results/ Evaluation

In order for a community of practice to be successful, it must be consistent in differentiating its dynamic from that of a working group or committee. The SR CoP at <our organization> has been successful in remaining a space where librarians from all disciplines supporting reviews can discuss issues. Participation is fluid, not mandatory and guests/topics vary month to month.
Conclusion

The SR Community of Practice at UBC has become an invaluable space to share insights and issues related to the support and authorshop of knowledge syntheses.

Human Touch (Recommended)

In talking to colleauges at research intensive universities, a common thread is the aspiration to develop a Knowledge Synthesis Community of Practice. This oral presentation will hopefully spark ideas and inspiration for others to do the same.

Introduction

Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM) has expanded the role of the librarian beyond identification of the literature only, to be involved in other stages of the evidence review process.
Aim

The aim of this paper is to demonstrate the role of the librarian in conducting evidence synthesis in partnership with clinicians, health care workers, researchers, and policy makers. We will examine a series of rapid reviews conducted during the last five years to support professionals and other decision-makers working in palliative care.
Method

The literature searches were conducted across a range of databases and supplementary sources. In addition to designing and running the literature searches, other tasks included carrying out screening and study selection, developing data extraction forms and carrying out quality assessment of the eligible studies. Final tasks included synthesising evidence and writing the review using reporting templates in collaboration with researchers.
Results

To date, twelve reviews have been conducted using a methodology developed in partnership with the research team. Findings will be presented from the start of the process at the point of partnership working, to development of the review and subsequent follow up to demonstrate impact. The evidence from these reviews impacts directly on palliative care clinicians and other decision makers, and indirectly on patients/carers in receipt of palliative care.

Conclusion

Broadening horizons provides opportunities for information professionals in health care to play an invaluable role. Librarians can be effective partners in supporting researchers to practice evidence-based medicine.

Human Touch (Recommended)

Being integrated into a research team is an invaluable experience and contributing to other aspects of the review process can be rewarding. It provides opportunities to develop our expertise and remain relevant in an ever-changing world.

Introduction

Search Summary Tables (SSTs) offer a simple way to provide an overview of the results of the searches in evidence syntheses. It combines the details from the PRISMA flow diagram with the search methods including sensitivity and precision calculations for each database, and overall. They can be used as evidence to inform future searching for the individual information professional and, if published with the systematic review/map, for the wider evidence syntheses community.

Previous SST have only been published for systematic reviews, this project will create a SST for an evidence gap map.

Aim

Create search summary tables (SSTs) for the different types of study: systematic review (SR), randomised controlled trial (RCT) and economic evaluation from an evidence gap map on peer support interventions. This is to help understand where the evidence was found for each study type and whether supplementary search techniques found any additional relevant studies.

Method/ Program Description

The searches for the Srs were run first followed by the searches for RCTs and finally the economic evaluations. The supplementary searching was all undertaken at the same time. Once the evidence gap map had been completed, the included references for each study type was input into the SST. The EndNote libraries with all of the search results (ie before duplicates were removed) were searched to find out which search in which database picked up the reference. This was carried out for all three study types.

Results/ Evaluation

The results presented will include: what database combinations would have found all of the included references, which database searches found unique references, which supplementary search methods found included references and which searches did not pick up included references which were in the database; and why.

Any results about the differences between searching for SRs, RCTs and EEs will also be presented.

Conclusion

Completing a SST can take time but it is a great learning tool for the information professional (IP) working on the project as it encourages reflection and learning, it also encourages transparency, not just of the search methods but of the search results, and provides evidence for the decisions we make as IPs. This is the first SST produced for an evidence gap map in the subject area of health and we are expecting that it will evolve into a living map and we will continue to complete SSTs to discover whether the search patterns stay the same over time.

Human Touch (Recommended)

We think SSTs are a great way for IPs to reflect on their work and share knowledge with others