By Alice Cann, Academic Liaison Librarian for Business at Brunel University London
This is the first in a series of blog posts reporting on an Evidence Synthesis Institute (ESI) delivered by the University of Minnesota, Cornell University, and Carnegie Mellon University. (Here’s part two, part three and part four.) These posts expand on a post originally on Alice’s Researcher Librarian blog.
Definitions of systematic reviews and evidence synthesis
Systematic review is a term I often use when talking with and supporting researchers. I refer to the Campbell Collaboration definition of this research method, describing it as summarising ‘the best available evidence on a specific question using transparent procedures to locate, evaluate, and integrate the findings of relevant research’ (2021, p. 5).
While I knew, when applying to be part of the Evidence Synthesis Institute, that systematic reviews are a type of evidence synthesis, and that scoping reviews are another example of this, I was not certain of the definition of evidence synthesis. Before each day of the four-day institute we were sent viewing materials, and one of these refers to the Royal Society definition:
‘Evidence synthesis’ refers to the process of bringing together information from a range of sources and disciplines to inform debates and decisions on specific issues. … An accurate, concise and unbiased synthesis of the evidence is therefore one of the most valuable contributions the research community can offer policymakers’ (2018).
Librarian input to explain complex concepts
My experience is that if I need clarity on something, such as what evidence synthesis is, then it is likely that others do, too!
My job as an academic librarian regularly involves taking information that, for people who have experience in an area, can seem obvious; I discuss the basics with people for whom the topic is new or confusing.
I have increasingly realised, as I speak with others about systematic reviews, that the ability that I and my librarian colleagues have to plan, carry out and report on database searches, and understand the wide range of decisions that need to be made surrounding evidence synthesis, are valuable skills that for many others – including experts in their fields – are complex and overwhelming tasks.
What others understand by evidence synthesis
Even if I now have a good basic understanding of evidence synthesis (and perhaps regularly readers of the Campbell blog do, too), this isn’t the case for many of the people I regularly work with. It is common for people to have heard of systematic reviews, and perhaps scoping reviews, but they don’t always know the aspects and stages of each type of review, and how evidence synthesis methods vary from a narrative literature review.
Within my own field, as a librarian working with business researchers, many people intend to do a systematic literature review, but are not always clear which elements of systematic reviews this encompasses. Even where people understand the stages, such as a title and abstract review and assessing risk of bias, they don’t have a comprehensive understanding of the planning, carrying out and reporting of systematic searches of the literature.
The Evidence Synthesis Institute, which I explain in more detail in a future post, helps librarians develop their understanding and skills, and articulate the value that their participation as collaborators in research projects can bring.
References
Campbell Collaboration (2021) Campbell systematic reviews: Policies and guidelines http://dx.doi.org/10.4073/cpg.2016.1.
Royal Society (2018) Evidence Synthesis. Available at: https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/evidence-synthesis/ (Accessed: 27th September, 2023).