Vol. 22 (2026)
Artigos

O bibliotecário nas revisões sistemáticas: propostas para um modelo de competências

PDF (Português (Brasil))
  • Jorge Ramirez-Landaeta
Jorge Ramirez-Landaeta
Bio

Published 2026-11-02

Keywords

  • Bibliotecário,
  • Competências profissionais,
  • Revisões sistemáticas

How to Cite

Ramirez-Landaeta, J. (2026). O bibliotecário nas revisões sistemáticas: propostas para um modelo de competências. Revista Brasileira De Biblioteconomia E Documentação, 22, 1–17. Retrieved from https://rbbd.febab.org.br/rbbd/article/view/2148

Copyright (c) 2026 Revista Brasileira de Biblioteconomia e Documentação

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Abstract

Systematic Reviews are considered the gold standard for scientific evidence, but they often suffer from methodological flaws, especially in their search strategies. In response to this challenge, leading international methodological organizations such as Cochrane and the Joanna Briggs Institute recommend the inclusion of librarians on research teams to enhance the quality, transparency, and comprehensiveness of the reviews. The objective of this study is to propose ideas for a conceptual competency framework for librarians, divided into three main areas: Information Search and Retrieval, Methodological Support and Collaboration, and Service Formalization and Management. Each area is detailed with the necessary knowledge, skills, and attitudes. Barriers and recommendations for journals, funding agencies, institutions, and librarians are also discussed.

PDF (Português (Brasil))

References

  1. CABSIN; BIREME/OPAS/OMS. Mapas de Evidência sobre Medicinas Tradicionais, Complementares e Integrativas. Consórcio Acadêmico Brasileiro de Saúde Integrativa; Biblioteca Regional de Medicina/Organização Pan-Americana da Saúde/Organização Mundial da Saúde, [2025]. Disponível em: https://mtci.bvsalud.org/pt/mapas-de-evidencia-2/. Acesso em: 26 set. 2026.
  2. FREDLUND, M. et al. What are the methodological characteristics of evidence and gap maps? A systematic review and evidence and gap map. Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods, [S. l.], v. 2, art. e12096, 2024. Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.1002/cesm.12096. Acesso em: 26 set. 2026.
  3. GALVÃO, Maria Cristiane Barbosa; RICARTE, Ivan Luiz Marques. Revisão Sistemática da Literatura: Conceituação, Produção e Publicação. Logeion: Filosofia da Informação, [S. l.], v. 6, n. 1, p. 57-73, set. 2019. Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.21728/logeion.2019v6n1.p57-73 . Acesso em: 01 sep. 2026.
  4. GRASSI, Jonathan; VASCONCELOS, Karla Anacleto de; ANHOQUE, Carolina Fiorin. Fonoaudiologia Baseada em Evidências: desafios, rigor metodológico e a necessária mudança de paradigma na prática clínica e científica. Revista Brasileira de Pesquisa em Saúde, v. 27, n. 1, art. e50543, 2025. Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.47456/rbps.v27i1.50543 . Acesso em: 01 sep. 2026.
  5. GUSENBAUER, Michael; GAUSTER, Sebastian P. How to search for literature in systematic reviews and meta-analyses: a comprehensive step-by-step guide. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, [S. l.], v. 212, art. 123833, jan. 2025. Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2024.123833 . Acesso em: 15 mar. 2026.
  6. HIGGINS, Julian P. T. et al. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.5. Cochrane, 2024. Disponível em: https://www.cochrane.org/handbook . Acesso em: 01 sep. 2026.
  7. KURIAN, Nirmal; CHERIAN, Joe Mathew; REJI, Ricku Mathew; VARGHESE, Kevin George. Can artificial intelligence accurately assess systematic review quality? Benchmarking large language models for AMSTAR 2 appraisal in dental evidence synthesis. Evidence-Based Dentistry, [S. l.], v. 2026, p. 1-5, ago. 2026. Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41432-026-01238-8 . Acesso em: 26 set. 2026.
  8. LÊ, Mê-Linh; NEILSON, Christine J.; WINKLER, Janice. Benchmarking librarian support of systematic reviews in the sciences, humanities, and social sciences. College & Research Libraries, [S. l.], v. 85, n. 4, p. 606, jul. 2024. Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.85.4.606 . Acesso em: 5 ago. 2026.
  9. MACDONALD, Susan et al. Assessment of the methodological quality of systematic reviews published in the urological literature from 1998 to 2008. The Journal of Urology, [S. l.], v. 184, n. 2, p. 648-653, ago. 2010. Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2010.03.127 . Acesso em: 17 abr. 2026.
  10. MCKEOWN, Sandra; ROSS-WHITE, Amanda. Building capacity for librarian support and addressing collaboration challenges by formalizing library systematic review services. Journal of the Medical Library Association, [S. l.], v. 107, n. 3, p. 406-417, jul. 2019. Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2019.443 . Acesso em: 20 ago. 2026.
  11. NICHOLSON, Joey; MCCRILLIS, Aileen; WILLIAMS, Jeff. Collaboration challenges in systematic reviews: a survey of health sciences librarians. Journal of the Medical Library Association, [S. l.], v. 105, n. 4, p. 385-395, out. 2017. Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2017.176 . Acesso em: 01 sep. 2026.
  12. NOEL-STORR, Anna; FLEMYNG, Ella; THOMAS, James. Artificial intelligence (AI) technologies in Cochrane. [S. l.]: Cochrane, maio 2024. Disponível em: https://training.cochrane.org/resource/artificial-intelligence-technologies-in-cochrane . Acesso em: 26 set. 2026.
  13. OUZZANI, Mourad et al. Rayyan: a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Systematic Reviews, [S. l.], v. 5, art. 210, dez. 2016. Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0384-4 . Acesso em: 10 abr. 2026.
  14. PAWLIUK, Colleen et al. Librarian involvement in systematic reviews was associated with higher quality of reported search methods: a cross-sectional survey. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, [S. l.], v. 166, art. 111237, fev. 2024. Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2023.111237 . Acesso em: 01 sep. 2026.
  15. PETERS, Micah D. J. et al. Scoping Reviews. In: AROMATARIS, Edoardo; MUNN, Zachary (ed.). JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. [S. l.]: JBI, 2024. Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.46658/JBIMES-24-09 . Acesso em: 01 sep. 2026.
  16. POLLOCK, Danielle et al. Recommendations for the extraction, analysis, and presentation of results in scoping reviews. JBI Evidence Synthesis, [S. l.], v. 21, n. 3, p. 520-532, mar. 2023. Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.11124/JBIES-22-00123. Acesso em: 12 abr. 2025.
  17. RAMIREZ, Diana; FOSTER, Margareth; KOGUT, Ashlynn; XIAO, Daniel. Adherence to systematic review standards: impact of librarian involvement in Campbell Collaboration's education reviews. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, [S. l.], v. 48, n. 5, art. 102567, set. 2022. Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2022.102567 . Acesso em: 01 sep. 2026.
  18. RETHLEFSEN, Melissa L. et al. Librarian co-authors correlated with higher quality reported search strategies in general internal medicine systematic reviews. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, [S. l.], v. 68, n. 6, p. 617-626, jun. 2015. Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.11.025 . Acesso em: 17 abr. 2025.
  19. SALVADOR-OLIVÁN, José A.; MARCO-CUENCA, Gonzalo; ARQUERO-AVILÉS, Rosario. Errors in search strategies used in systematic reviews and their effects on information retrieval. Journal of the Medical Library Association, [S. l.], v. 107, n. 2, p. 210-221, abr. 2019. Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2019.567 . Acesso em: 17 abr. 2026.
  20. SANTERO, Marilina; DÍAZ MENAI, Samanta. How can we address the surge of low-quality systematic reviews and their impact on high journal rejection rates? Colombia Médica, [S. l.], v. 55, n. 4, art. e4006597, dez. 2024. Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.25100/cm.v55i4.6597 . Acesso em: 10 ago. 2026.
  21. SCHALKEN, Naomi; RIETBERGEN, Charlotte. The reporting quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in industrial and organizational psychology: a systematic review. Frontiers in Psychology, [S. l.], v. 8, art. 1395, ago. 2017. Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01395 . Acesso em: 26 set. 2026.
  22. SCHELLINGER, Jana et al. The effect of librarian involvement on the quality of systematic reviews in dental medicine. PLOS ONE, [S. l.], v. 16, n. 9, art. e0256833, set. 2021. Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256833 . Acesso em: 6 mar. 2026.
  23. SHAHEEN, Nour et al. Appraising systematic reviews: a comprehensive guide to ensuring validity and reliability. Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics, [S. l.], v. 8, art. 1268045, 2023. Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2023.1268045 . Acesso em: 15 mar. 2026.
  24. SPENCER, Angela J.; ELDREDGE, Jonathan D. Roles for librarians in systematic reviews: a scoping review. Journal of the Medical Library Association, [S. l.], v. 106, n. 1, p. 46-56, jan. 2018. Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2018.82 . Acesso em: 1 sep. 2026.