 My name is Alex Boucher and I'm one of the co-hosts of this webinar. I am the Library Liaison. I'm a research instruction librarian and I'm the Library Liaison to the College of Human Environmental Sciences, the Department of History, Latin American, Caribbean and Latinx Studies. And like Lance and Carly, I have helped faculty members around campus with systematic reviews, primarily helping faculty members in the College of Human Environmental Sciences. So Carly. Great. Hi everyone. My name is Carly Reason and I am the Library Liaison to the Social Sciences. And as Alex said, I've worked with faculty and students across campus as they're working on conducting and just learning about systematic reviews. Thanks so much, Carly. So my name is Lance Simpson. I am the Library Liaison to the vast majority of the College of Engineering. The only department that's outside of my purview is the Chemical and Biological Engineering. I'm also the Liaison for the Department of Biological Sciences. And I've done work with systematic reviews with the Transportation Institute, looking in engineering and some in public health as well. And I do have my email address down there below. And many thanks to Alex and Carly. So to get us started today, and before we fully jump in, I'm going to go through just a couple of quick. I know we all live in this new world now. We've had a chance to try out some of these things. But I want to make sure that you feel comfortable as we get started today. So one, I want you to feel free to raise your virtual hand as we go through the day to day. If you've not had a chance to do that before, there's a couple of different ways that you can. If you're on a desktop or laptop computer, you can click the participants button down there at the very bottom of your screen. And you'll see on the right side of your screen pop up a couple of options and one of them is the raise hand option. So if you do that, a tiny blue hand will appear on our screen and we'll be glad to answer that question for you. The chat is open. So as we go through the day, if you'd like to ask questions through the chat, you can do that. I should note I've got an image on the screen here that I'll describe for you for raising your hand if you are on a mobile device. So this will all look slightly different if you're on a mobile device today. But the way to get to that raise hand option on a mobile device is to tap your screen one time and then you will see an option for more. And when you click that, that raised hand option will be there for you to do that. We do have the zoom poll going. We're just about to wrap that up. If you haven't had a chance, please feel free to answer that. So the question was, what is your familiarity with systematic reviews? One last thing, so you may notice in the top left-hand corner of your screen that that beautiful red glowing blinking dot. We are recording today's session. If you do not want your image to appear on the recording, please feel free to have your camera turned off during the session today. But we want to let everybody know that we're going to do that. We'll be glad to send you a copy of the recording once the session is completed later this week. And we'll also be glad to post this later to you so you can have quick access to it. And any of your colleagues that weren't able to access that as well. All right, so as we go through two, I want to make sure that everybody feels comfortable to ask questions. We will have a couple of spots of them for you to ask questions as we go. So I want to start this out before we go any further in talking about systematic reviews and saying that we at UA Libraries are here for you. So no matter what part of the process with systematic reviews you're in, no matter how familiar you are with systematic reviews, we are happy to work with you. We have a team of liaisons that's glad to help you talk out any part of what it is that we talk about with you today and in the subsequent coming workshops. And we want to make sure that you feel comfortable reaching out to us. We all have different subject areas of expertise, but we're happy to help you however is going to best work for you and the team that you are working with. And with that I'm going to end our poll and looks like we had a great set. So we have about 32% of the participants that we've got are at the beginner level with systematic reviews. You're just getting started. We're super excited to have you here with us today to talk about this. We have about 53% at the intermediate level. So you've started to learn about systematic reviews. You're starting to get comfortable, but you had a few more questions. And at our expert level, we have three folks in the audience that are they're feeling confident. They've done this before. They know what they're doing. So we're going to be excited to share this with you today and to talk through. And I'm going to pass it on to Carly to get us started just after I talk through what we're going to do today. So our setup for today. This is a lunch and learn style setup. So we're going to make sure to have you out by one o'clock. We will talk about what a systematic review is. So for those of you that are just getting started, we've got you covered. We're going to walk you through writing a research question. So getting started before you even do start looking for things for your systematic review. We're going to walk you through searching for other systematic reviews to give you good solid examples of other systematic reviews that may have been published already or the protocols for a systematic review or some that are in progress right now. So you can see what other work is being done in the subject area that you're interested in. And last but most certainly not least, we will talk about creating a systematic review protocol, how to register that and how to find others. So again, we'll have a couple of spots for questions open throughout the session today. Please feel free to stop us to ask those. If you want to ask outside that section as well. I'm going to pass it on over to Carly from there. Oh, I think I'll take this part. So I thought what we do is since we we've looked at the poll and we definitely have some people that are relatively new to systematic reviews. I thought we would spend a couple of minutes just talking about what a systematic review is. And the next slide I'll sort of talk about how a systematic review compares to a more traditional literature review. I'm not going to go through all of the sections of this sort of definition of a systematic review. There is a good general definition of a systematic review, which is that it is a review of the evidence on a clearly formulate question, which a clearly formulate research question, which is what Carly is going to be talking about in a little bit. But based on clearly formulate question that uses systematic and explicit methods to identify, select and critically appraise relevant primary research, and then to extract and analyze data from the studies that are used in that systematic review. What I will point out with these characteristics, what we will mainly be talking about in these three workshops that we have planned are the first three of these. We will primarily be walking you through the research process of a systematic review, how to start and form a good answerable research question that you can base your review on how you can design search strategies that are well systematic, but also reproducible. And then how to go ahead and do a systematic search that attempts to identify every published study that meets your review inclusion criteria. So we will not be talking a whole lot about the final two characteristics. After you have found all of the articles that you need to find for a systematic review you of course then need to appraise the articles. Decide your team needs to decide whether they should be included or excluded based upon your predetermined criteria, and then you need to extract data and write the paper. We will mainly be walking you through the research process for doing the systematic review, setting up the study, finding all the articles you need, and then managing your citations and sources. Another way of talking about what a systematic review is is to compare it to a traditional, traditional literature review. So Lance, if you don't mind going to the next slide. Sort of a quick table that talks about some of the differences. Now this is a little text heavy and we are not going to sit here and read the whole thing and I don't expect you read. We will be sharing the recording of this with you and Lance is also sharing the slide so you will have this if you want to go back to it, but I will point out some clear differences. One, like I was saying, well of course you could start with a research question and a literature review, but a clearly formulated research question is really the starting point for a systematic review and like I said, Carly will be talking about that in a minute. But really when you get into the next parts of this and where the clear differences are. In a literature review, you do not necessarily need to find all published studies on your topic and the synthesis of important and current studies is usually fine. But with the systematic review it is really important and even imperative that you find all published research studies on your topic. Now, of course, there are. There are some criteria to that you may not have to find all studies because you may be only looking for studies since 2010 or 2015. But within that time range, you are expected to find all published studies because to not do so would could invalidate the conclusions of your article. For an example, I usually help out people and things like health science, nutrition, things like that. So if you're writing a systematic review on diabetes or COVID-19 or some aspect of each of those. If you were to miss published studies on those, your conclusions of your systematic review would definitely be invalidated or hurt pretty severely. So we will talk about search strategies. I don't want to make that sound daunting. If you haven't done a systematic review before, we will help you with the search strategies that you need to be able to find all published articles on your topic. But we will be mostly doing that in next week's webinar. Today, we're just sort of setting the foundations to some extent. Another thing you can do if you're a little bit worried about finding all published research studies on your topic is you can contact your liaison librarian. And like Lance said, we will be happy to do anything from consulting, which we could just help you build search strategies, choose relevant databases, or we could do more than that and we could really become part of the systematic review team. The rest of this, like I said, we will talk about in more depth as we go on. But those are sort of the important things I thought I would point out for those of y'all that do not have as much experience with working on a systematic review. So with that, I think we'll move on to the next slide. And I believe that will be Carly Stern. Yeah, great. So another kind of way of looking at a systematic review is thinking about all the different steps. And this slide details very briefly all the different components of a systematic review. So first, you are thinking about your research question and thinking about the different frameworks that exist that will help you construct your research question. And then once you've completed that step, you'll be thinking more about writing the protocol. And a systematic review protocol describes the rationale and the hypothesis and the planned methods of the review. And this is should be prepared before the review is started because it will really kind of guide your entire review. And then once you get that in place, you'll begin conducting your literature search and identifying the databases you want to search in and constructing your search strings and creating a search that can be both documented and duplicated. And then you'll begin selecting your sources based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria that you developed in your protocol. And then once you've kind of gathered all of your sources, the next step will be reviewing those sources to ensure that they meet the criteria that you developed in your protocol and that they're not duplicate records. And then the last step will be, you know, following reporting guidelines and writing out your systematic review for publication. And you'll notice the first two entries of this process or this, you know, components of a systematic review. They're a tall size because those are the two that we're really talking about today and this framework and this these different components will be talking about most all of these except for the very last one throughout this workshop series. So, then in thinking about with the kind of the first step, and if we can move to that next slide. Thanks. Thanks, Lance. So first off is is writing the research question. And there are many different frameworks that exist that will help you write out your research question. And these frameworks they really vary depending on topic or discipline or the type of question. And these frameworks will help you write a clear and specific question. They'll help ensure that the question is appropriate and manageable in terms of scope. And they'll provide detail on your, your studies objective and they'll also help you begin to determine the inclusion and exclusion criteria of your study. So there are quite a few that exist. I'm going to talk just about three three kind of the most commonly used frameworks and that first one is called Pico, and this is a framework that's often used with quantitative research and Pico stands for patient population or problem, intervention, comparison outcome, and sometimes Pico can include time or a type of study. So below that is an example of a research question that's written following the Pico format, and you can see I've put in bold, the different components of the Pico framework. There are quite a few examples of questions that are written in these different formats. This, the questions I'm using today are from Cornell University Library and they put together quite a detailed page about these different frameworks and that that resource is at the end of this presentation if you want to take a look at that further. The next example that we have is also called Pico, but it's PIC and then a lowercase o and this framework is often used with qualitative research. And so Pico and this in this example stands for patient population or problem, interest and context. Again, we have another question here at the bottom that's written in the framework of Pico directed for that qualitative qualitative research. And then we have a third example, and this one is called spider and this this framework is often used with qualitative and mixed methods research and I believe spider was adapted from the first Pico example that we saw when kind of thinking about how we can develop a framework for more for qualitative research and mixed methods research. So spider stands for sample phenomenon of interest design evaluation and research type. And again, there's another example here at the bottom of the screen. And you can see how when you're writing your research question how kind of having information that addresses each one of these pieces of the framework. And that can really help you when you're constructing the question. And this is an example as well where you don't have to write out your question in the order of writing the sample and then the phenomenon of interest and then the design. So your question is kind of addressing these various components of the framework. It will help you move forward and really help you put together that question that that is appropriate in scope and kind of gives you a more clear direction of where your research is going. So these these again these are just three, three different frameworks that you can use and in this this image here is from a book called assembling the pieces of a systematic review a guide for librarians. There's two two authors Margaret Foster and Sarah Jewel they published a book, they published this book and they have this this page is a really fantastic kind of example of how many different frameworks there are for constructing your questions. So you can see that they have the framework what it stands for, as well as discipline or type of questions that these frameworks might work well with. And then there's kind of like an in text citation next to the framework and these will. There's not a link on here but if you look at the take a look at the book, these are authors that have written about these these frameworks and providing more information and more background about these different frameworks. So in the library, we do have the ebook of where this this table is coming from. And again the citation for this book, the full citation is at the end of this presentation but I would encourage you to take a look and kind of see you know when you're getting your question like what framework might work best and kind of explore through some of these but their frameworks are really good starting point and will be really helpful when you're constructing that resource question which is the first step of your systematic review. So you know we've kind of talked quite a bit so far about kind of what a systematic review is how it differs from a literature review. We've talked about some of the different steps as well as really focusing on that first step writing that research question. Do any of you have any questions at this point about anything we've covered. And if you have a question feel free to unmute your mic if you'd rather type your question in the chat box that's fine to So far. Oh, okay, thanks Alex. I just went ahead and posted a link to that ebook that Carly was talking about the pieces of systematic review up posted into the chat so if anyone's interested looking at that you could just go ahead and follow that link. Thanks Alex. All right, we're not seeing any questions right now we'll keep going from there. So I want to talk about getting started with your systematic review and kind of searching some out so if you've never seen a systematic reviews never been a part of one before had a chance to read through any. There's some great resources out there. Also if you are wanting to see what other people are working on right now to see what systematic reviews may be in progress. We're going to talk about a few of those as well. So first of all I want to talk about registered systematic reviews or protocols and we'll talk about developing that protocol just after this with Alex. But there's a couple of things that I have listed here so I've got the slide deck there all of these are linked so you're welcome to go and check any of these out after the presentations over. But the first one that I want to talk about or that the first three I should say are specifically focused toward help field so they have a help bent to what it is that they are they're working toward. The first one is the Cochrane Library Cochrane Library allows you that they are the gold standard at taking a look at ensuring that systematic reviews are as effective and tight and following the scientific scientific method if they can possibly be Cochrane Library search link that I've got there allows you to search for other systematic reviews that have been registered by mesh terms. So those of you that are familiar with PubMed may know my terms of their subject criteria. You just heard Carly talk a little bit about the Pico setup so Cochrane Library is actually beta testing a Pico search now so you can look for these specific variables through Cochrane Library to see what other what other systematic reviews may be out there that have used similar variables. Cochrane Library provides these through Wiley Wiley Incense the publishing company so you can create an account and actually be able to save your search results as you go through. So if you have something that you're interested in and coming back and seeing what results are available, you can do that by creating account using your UA email address. The next one I want to talk about I've actually got an image of on the screen and I'll describe that image for you in just a moment is Prospero. So Prospero is from the National Institute of Health Research in the UK. Prospero is a place that you can register a protocol or a systematic review that is in progress. You can update at what stage you are with that review that way you can let folks know out there that you are actually doing some work in this in this area. You can see what other folks are doing work in areas that are of interest to you and interest to your team as you're going forward. They also have a setup for you to be able to search using mesh term headings and they have a way that you can be able to create an account as well to be able to search and see what sort of or to be able to upload your own protocol. So just something Alex is going to talk about in just a little bit. The Joanna Briggs Institute or JBI has systematic reviews that are available that you can search that are through J or have been done through JBI. I mean I've got a link here and I'll note I'm going to note with Joanna Briggs and a couple that are after this. These links are UA library links. So the ones that I'm noting that for so JBI is one whenever you select that that link it is going to request that you put in your my Bama user name and password to be able to log in to ensure you've got full access. The last one on this particular slide is open science framework. So open science framework goes beyond just things that that coincide with health initiatives. So you can take a look. It's not just limited to systematic reviews. There's a lot out there. You can connect your get account up to that if you would like to. But you can see what other research what other data sets are out there. We'll talk a little bit more about open science framework in our next session as well as we talk about developing search strategies. So one thing that I want to note to this image that I have on the screen is from the National Institute of Health Research for the Prospero setup. So the image is a picture of a search results using the phrase or using the word orthodontia to see if there were five results that are listed. You can see that there's one that the reviews been completed and published. You can see what date it was registered on. You can see that there's one that the review is ongoing and see what date it was registered. I will note that those dates are written in a European format. So if you see something it was not registered in November that it started it from July. But you can see what sort of things are out there. You can actually export all of these files as well to be able to sort them out if this is something that you want to review later. So I did want to mention really quickly the setup in case anyone out there is doing research for grants related to COVID-19. So a lot of the groups that we just talked about and a few others that I'm going to add on here have research set up so you can see what systematic reviews are already out there. Directly related to COVID-19 studies and Prospero has a setup if you click this link it automatically applies all of the COVID-19 filters. So you can see what systematic reviews have already been registered with Prospero for COVID-19 research. PubMed has an incredible setup under LIT COVID that I have linked here. Not only can you see systematic reviews out there but you can see a lot of research and data sets that have been developed. COVID IND is another project that is through McMaster University that has a similar setup where you can review systematic reviews that have been developed related to COVID-19 but also other data sets that are out there. And the TRIP database is one that I did not mention with the previous setup but this is another one that you can search for systematic reviews. There is some limit so it does have a Pico search as well. There is some limit because there are some free and paid sections of the TRIP database but TRIP also has a COVID-19 setup that you can search. And so you can see I have an image here listed with a search that was done in TRIP with its COVID-19 filters on. It lists a set of 113 results. I have it listed to specifically mark systematic reviews there as well so you can see which ones are there and you can get information about the systematic reviews that are ongoing for those. So databases that we have through UA that you can search for systematic reviews. This is not every database. There is a few more that you can search as well but there are a couple that I wanted to highlight. Systematic reviews come from the help field originally but there are several other fields as many of you are joining in that have been doing systematic reviews as well for a long time. So I have linked to a few here that I wanted to quickly give you some information on. And one, this is a Discovery Service rather than a database so it is the UA Library Discovery Service Scout. I have a link for Scout here that you can click on but there is also a great video that Carly has created for searching Scout for systematic reviews that I have a link for as well. Many of you are probably familiar with Web of Science but if you are not Web of Science is a great setup to be able to search citation index or multiple citation indices to be able to see some results out there. Scopus operates very similarly to Web of Science and being able to search a large swath of citation indices. PubMed is going to be specifically help focused but that is another great place in the National Library of Medicine that you can start searching for systematic reviews. And I have listed engineering village being the engineering library and I like to point some of these resources out as well and I do have a screenshot from an engineering village search that I did. Now this was a very broad search searching only for systematic reviews in general. If you were searching for a systematic review and I should note there were about 11,870 records that I searched just using the Compendix database through engineering village that are listed here. But I did not search for a specific subject that was just for systematic reviews or systematic literature reviews. So I listed a couple of keywords down here in the bottom and you can see these again in the video that Carly has provided further toward the top with the page that I've got here. But when searching for systematic reviews in any of these, if you were looking for reviews within medicine or within the health field, the keyword search that you're going to use is whatever subject that you're looking for and then in quotation marks systematic review. If you get outside of the health and medical field, you'll want to include this systematic literature review in quotation marks as well. So in the engineering field that's often what they're called interval other fields are often listed as systematic literature reviews. Also, but we're going to talk further about actually searching some of these databases in our next session for next week. Alright, so we're going to talk now about creating a protocol. So I'm going to talk about creating a systematic review protocol. I actually volunteered to talk about this part because I think is very important. Just going back to some my own personal experience with working with this. And also what Lance was talking about is super important because one of your first steps with doing a systematic review is a you want to see has there been a systematic review published on your topic is your idea sort of redundant. But then going beyond just searching for just published systematic reviews searching for the systematic read protocols because a lot of people register their protocols while they are working on it. So it's a way of just being avoiding being blindsided by somebody working on a topic that's basically just like yours. But even if you do not publish your systematic review protocol, it still is a very important part of the process. So what does working on a systematic review protocol do, I think it does a lot of things, but I think one thing is that it really helps with the teamwork needed to do a systematic review. So one thing we need to talk about when we were talking about the differences between traditional literature review and a systematic review is the team. A traditional literature review can be done by one person. I don't know of any systematic reviews that are done by one person in fact you're just explicitly not supposed to do a systematic review by yourself you're supposed to have a team of at least three people. In a way that is used to reduce bias basically especially when you are identifying articles after you have found them when you are choosing articles for inclusion or exclusion a team of reviewers is meant to eliminate some bias basically. So a systematic review protocol I think is very helpful for keeping all members of your team on track. What does it do besides that it spells everything out the research question your search strategies so that there's no ambiguity or wasted effort. Like I said I have personal experience with this. I have worked with a faculty member and health sciences on a systematic review. And when we were working on it when we first started we just we would talked about it we knew what the idea was we did what's called like a scoping search which we'll talk about next week where you go out and do kind of quick search to see how the articles there are on the subject. And so we started out and we're doing that, but frankly, we weren't completely on the same page as far as what we were doing and what we were looking for. The systematic review protocol was a way of clearly putting everything down on paper so that we all knew exactly what the research question was exactly what the inclusion or exclusion criteria was exactly what the search strategy was. So we're all on the same page basically so I am a pretty big believer in doing this and creating one whether you register it or not. And also finally assist with reproducibility which is a very important part of this. So, if you can go to the next slide, we'll have an example of a systematic review protocol. There are many of these out there. This is not the only one obviously but this is the one I have used before and I have found it very helpful. And it is a way of kind of clearly stating everything, especially if you're working again from personal experience if you're working with a librarian who might be your subject expert but isn't a subject expert on the actual subject. It's a way of spelling everything out like the review question and every aspect of the overall topic. Lance go ahead to the next slide. Let's talk about the rest of this. So here you were able to kind of develop your search strategy and this is where a librarian can come in handy to some extent what databases to be searched. If you were in the help the medicine fields and you'll be wanting to look at PubMed and send all plus and various other databases and if you're an engineering you'll be wanting to look at engineering village web of science etc etc. Components of a search strategy or things like hand searching which is just in searching important journals title by title basically and then doing reference searches which are forward or backwards citations. And there are all sorts of aspects of a good systematic review strategy and then the eligibility criteria. I think is very important for a lot of reasons and one is it can help with the actual research process like I was saying before if you know going back to if you're working with a large team. I was working on one that was about diabetes and clinical outcomes and I am again not an expert about diabetes or clinical outcomes. I'm an expert on finding articles about diabetes and clinical outcomes but I'm not an expert on the actual disease. So the inclusion exclusion criteria really spelled out exactly what we were looking for. And I came back to that a lot actually in searching for articles because it's like what is really important what do we need to find. Lance if you could go ahead to the final page of this one this you'll get into more as you go along. The steps of a systematic review as Carly was pointing her out or anything starting with the research question to working on the protocol to finding articles to selecting articles and then eventually to things like data extraction and data synthesis. You have all the steps and you're able to kind of put everything down on paper so that everyone in your team knows what we're doing and what we're working on and what the goal of the systematic review is. And then finally it's just very important for for documentation. An important part of a systematic review is you want to be as transparent as possible about what you did and how you went about searching for articles what you searched for how you found them so that your study could be reduced reproducible if necessary. And this is just another part of that overall plan. So let's go ahead Lance to the next slide where we'll talk about registering one right Lance already talked about a good bit of this. But places that you can search for systematic review protocols are also of course places that you can register your own systematic review protocol. The only thing I'll mention here Lance went through all of them and talked about the differences between them. If you are in some areas like business or some related subject there may not be an obvious place to register your systematic review. If you are in health sciences that you can register that at Prospero or the Cochrane registry. If you are in other science fields and you can register at the open science framework and some areas it may not be clear at first. What I would recommend with that is contact your librarian see if they know some places that place that you can go to register your protocol. But then the other thing I would say is even if there isn't a great place to register your protocol I think it's worth doing besides that because it's worth doing for your own project. It's worth doing because it helps sort of build your search plan and your overall systematic review plan. So Lance if you could go ahead to the next slide. I think that basically wraps up what we were talking about with building a protocol. We do have some resources here that you can look to some of these Carly mentioned at the very beginning developing your research question assembling the pieces of systematic review. And then some of them are the last few or more about developing a systematic review protocol and like Lance shared the link you will have these slides and you will have a recording of this video so you can come back to these as you go. And then let's let's move on to the next slide and I believe what we will have now is just time for questions. So we have hit about 1240. At this point we do have a few things just to kind of talk about the very end but for now we definitely have time for questions. If you would like to just unmute yourself and ask or if you would like to share them in the chat we would be happy to answer any questions you might have. We did have a question come in on the chat earlier that came to me about searching for COVID-19 reviews from a business impact perspective as opposed to a medical. I'm going to I'm going to stop for just a moment and pull we have a guide that we put together that that is not necessarily specifically for systematic reviews but is for searching for information regarding COVID-19 in general. That is going to include information for different keywords to be able to search as well as databases within the business sizes that you can search for that. So I'm going to step away for just a moment so I can grab that and I'm going to drop that in the chat. Okay, and we will definitely get into a lot of the sort of daunting part if there is a daunting part which is all the things that you can do to kind of build a good effective search strategy and how to find the articles you need. We'll definitely be going very in depth on that next week. I have a quick question. My name is Katie Garrison and I'm a first year assistant professor in the Department of Psychology. So thank you guys first for your presentation. This is really helpful. But I just have a question about what to do if you have any recommendations for if you decide that you need to change your protocol once you start and so I've had a little bit of experience with systematic reviews and once I started searching articles and kind of coding them. I like realized that the scope was too big and had to change things and and from my understanding this is kind of common just because once you sort of embark on this project often things change and so do you have recommendations for how to update your protocol or just like to keep things streamlined and organized if you have to change things midway through. That makes sense. No, definitely. I don't know if anyone else has any thoughts. I'm happy to share some my from my thought with this is that it. If you are registering the protocol one thing you're doing with that is it's sort of. It's sort of just a it's kind of courtesy and extent because you're registering your protocols so other people can see that you're working on it so they know that you might be publishing it at some point. So there's nothing really with registering it that can keep you that keeps you from updating it basically you're sort of just registering it to say that you're working on this thing. I definitely when we've worked on one before we've worked on the protocol for a while so I think the protocol can definitely be sort of a living document to some extent. I don't see any reason why you could just go through and update it as you go to some extent. I don't know if any of y'all have any thoughts about that. Not that you covered what I was thinking Alex. Okay. Yeah I don't think I have too much to add to that I do think like you said it can be this document as you're going I mean, once you really get into that in depth research process and are accumulating more and more resources it is possible right that it might shift a little bit and so I think going into it with that flexibility at the beginning kind of stages happens and like Alex said just kind of seeing that as as kind of a document that can be updated as you're going is seems to be okay. Yeah actually joy had a good point in the chat which is that people can take a look at the chat for a second just that you according to Cochran you can't go back and update the protocol you just explained in the paper why you made the changes which is another thing we didn't really talk about the protocol, but you are in a lot of times when you're in the systematic review you were using some of the protocol in the actual paper you were talking about your protocol and what you did and what your plan was what your search strategy was and so on so forth. So yes that if you anyone wants to take a look joy had a helpful answer in the chat as well. There any other questions. And I did add the I did the lib guide link so a guide to resources through through you a library for for multiple fields for resources on COVID-19 that question earlier, I would say if you if you are going to search for systematic review specifically related to COVID-19 in these these different fields that may venture outside of health care, you'll want to make sure and include as a part of your your search your keywords. So, to look for the subject that you're looking for, but also include either systematic review and quotation marks or systematic literature review and quotation marks, but those those databases are there, and there's a great list of search terms to which again, we'll talk more about searching next week. Also a point out just even piggybacking more off of the joys comment in the chat which is the Cochran has a lot of helpful information about systematic reviews. A lot of very helpful information about it. So I don't know about Lancer Carly but I know and really taught me how to do a systematic review in school. So I had to sort of find out on my own to some extent and Cochran has been a very helpful resource with that. Other questions. We have some time we only we only have a few brief sort of trying to think of just a few brief notes about our contact information and what we're planning for the next two weeks so we we have time for more questions if anybody has any. We had one. Lance we would definitely we can anyone can pop in with question any point but Lance do you want to move on the next slide we could go and talk about a few things and then anyone can share their questions any point just meet yourself and stop me or post in the chat. The last thing the last couple of things we point out again. During these wet workshops, we will have three of them. We would like as many people as possible to show up but we also be sending you the recordings, but beyond these workshops we are available to help. We don't have a detailed systematic review plan necessarily but your liaison librarians are someone that you can go to if you have a question about doing a systematic review or if you need assistance whether that's sort of small time assistance or very in depth assistance. So if you need any extra up and contact one of us or you can contact your liaison librarian, depending on who that is. As far as our contact information, we have it right here in the slides. We are also all of us all over the library's website we are very hard not to find. So you can contact any of us at any point. And as far as the next workshop goes. I will say at the exact same time. We will be doing the second of our three part workshop series which is possibly the more interesting or important part or if it's if you were if you're starting to work on systematic review it might be the scary part which is how do I go about finding all published studies that meet my inclusion criteria what is the best way to search for articles what databases do I use what search strategies do I use. We'll cover all that next week from 12 to one or however long it takes Tuesday, October 20, like this one. You do have to register. So if you have not registered for that one. The link to register is included in this PowerPoint, and it also was in the original email that we sent you. Thank you so much for joining me and Lance if you'll have anything else to share, if not also definitely had, let us know if you have any questions. Yeah, thank you all so much. Oh looks like we have one chat in the question in the chat. How do I know if my research question is too broad or too narrow. One thing that you can do is I sort of mentioned it very much in passing earlier but there's something that's called, or what's at least and maybe it's just in library world called a scoping search, which is one of your first parts of your systematic review. So you first start with thinking about your topic, you write a research question, you search for other published systematic reviews to see if somebody else has written something that you're about your exact topic, or is in the process of writing something about your topic. And then you do what is called a scoping search, which is, let's say you're in. You're doing something in health and nutrition, you go to PubMed, and maybe send all plus and maybe another database and do sort of a basic quick search for your topic. So just do that to get a sense of how many articles are out there on your topic. If your topic is too narrow, you might know right then, because you might find out you might have a good idea like, we're not going to be able to find enough published primary research articles to do a systematic review on this topic. So that is one of the first early steps in searching. After that, and if you decided you have enough articles or your search is viable, then you go back in with the much more systematic detailed comprehensive search of databases. But one of the first things is the sort of scoping search where you can get a sense of, all right, there may not be enough articles on this topic. Now that doesn't really cover the, is it too broad. Could I guess if you just find a huge amount of articles in your topic. But also, and Carly might have an idea about this as well but some of the, I think some of the point of the, some of the research question models is it sort of helps to avoid it too broad of a question. Would you agree with that or not Carly? Yeah, I think when you use those frameworks as a guide to writing your own question, it will kind of help with formulating a question that is, it is kind of appropriate in scope. And then once you kind of tackle that, then kind of going forward and doing those initial searches, I think those two components combined will really help in terms of figuring out or kind of coming to the conclusion of is it appropriate in scope? Is there too many? Is there not enough? And I think with those two things that they'll be really helpful in terms of kind of coming to the conclusion of scope in terms of the question. Okay, the next question in the chat, I almost started to talk about that just based off of the last question. I almost was like, well, you know, I wonder, like, is there, because we were talking about doing the scoping search, and can you like what is the, what is the right amount of articles? And you go out there and you say, all right, there are only three articles on this. Is that enough? From my understanding, there is not a, there is not like a number for a minimum amount of studies. But I would think from everything I've seen in Lance or Carly, you might have an idea, but I feel like most things that I've read are you probably want at least, and I hate to put a number, so maybe I shouldn't be probably at least like five articles. Something or in that general vicinity, one or two articles is probably not enough, but even that is sort of, it's dependent on the data that is included in the articles that you find. Can you extract enough data from the articles? So it's sort of, there's a lot of components to that question, but Lance and Carly, you all are welcome to join in. I would say Alex, and to the person that asked that question, again, there's not a magic number, the bare minimum. But you want to make sure that if you do only come up with five, that there's a reason that you only came up with five. So we'll talk a lot about that next week and how it is that you do your search and what it is that you're going to search. But you want to show that you have exhaustively searched the literature to find the five, the number I guess, that five was all that you found. Why that was, that it was all that you found. So this is a reproducible thing. You're creating, you're doing a scientific experiment away. You're going to show something that people can go behind you and do again. And that's the whole purpose of the systematic review is it is reproducible. So you want to be able to show if your search results only yielded a very limited amount to be able to say why that was in the paper and the review that you write. Definitely. I do want to reiterate that five is on the lower scale, but you definitely don't want much less than that. But even like I was saying with that, there is some context to it. I mean, they need to be high quality studies that you're able to extract enough data from. And also, like Lance was saying, it needs to be if they're only seven or eight, then, then there really should only be seven or eight out there. You don't need to be missing studies if you have a relatively low number. Okay, coming up towards one o'clock, but we definitely have a few more minutes if anyone else would like a final question. While we're waiting, I'm going to drop a couple of links in the chat. So the slide deck is available. Before I drop the slide deck, though, I do want to drop a link for the calendar event for the next session that we're going to have, which again is going to be a week from today to the October 20th at 12 noon central time. So I'm going to drop that link for that in the chat so you can you can click on that and be able to find the actual registration link from there and be able to add it to your calendar if you would like. I'm also going to grab a link for the slide deck one more time just to make sure that folks have got it. So all of the links that you saw today in the presentation are links there. So anything that you want to try back out and be able to link back out to you can. You also will have a copy of the recording that's available that you can go back and rewatch if you would like also before we go and I'm looking to see I don't see any blue hands raised. No comments in the chat Alex and Carly do you have anything else you want to add before we before we sign out. Now we look forward to seeing you again next week. That's about it. Yeah, thank you so much for joining us today and I hope it was helpful and yeah we look forward to next week. Awesome everybody thanks for coming. We will see you next week for basic search strategies with systematic reviews. I want to reiterate that we at UA libraries are here for you so at any part of this process please feel free to contact us and we'll be glad to help out and thanks again for coming today and we'll follow up with a copy of the presentation later.