系統性文獻回顧(Systematic Reviews,SR)整合與特定問題相關的原始文獻，提供臨床人員做出好的決策，而如何在眾多的資料中檢索到適合且品質好的文獻被視為是圖書館員的專業，使館員參與SR的情況值得關注。本研究主要目的是探討全球SR文章概況，採用書目計量法分析醫學圖書館員參與SR與一般SR文章在作者數、主要作者所屬機構國別、引用篇數及被引用次數間的差異，研究對象為收錄於MEDLINE資料庫的22種期刊，在2014年至2017年所出版的SR文章共9,030篇。再從醫學圖書館員和實證醫學中心主任的角度，採用訪談法探討目前臺灣醫學圖書館員參與SR的現況，包括所屬單位提供SR相關服務、參與SR撰寫經驗、對館員參與SR的看法及兩個單位間的關係，訪談三位曾參與SR文章撰寫或SR海報的館員及三位其所屬機構的實證醫學中心主任。

研究結果顯示：全球SR文章概況方面，有館員參與SR的文章數呈現逐年成長的趨勢，其中刊登文章數最多的期刊為Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews。SR文章作者特徵方面，作者數集中在3至7人；有館員參與SR文章的主要作者所屬機構以美國最多，一般SR文章則以英國最多；高度發展國家館員參與SR的比率較高。SR文章引文差異方面，館員參與程度與文章引用篇數無顯著相關性，而館員參與程度與文章被引用次數則呈現低度負相關。臺灣醫學圖書館員與實證醫學中心主任參與SR之現況方面，醫學圖書館著重SR文獻檢索服務，實證醫學中心以開設課程為主；參與SR撰寫的經驗的部分，曾參與SR文章的作者數介於4至7人，館員最常協助SR文獻檢索，PRISMA為撰寫SR時最常被遵循的規範，圖資相關科系的背景則有助於館員的參與；對館員參與SR之看法，雙方皆期望有更多館員參與SR，影響臺灣館員參與SR的主因為服務單位環境、主管認知及個人因素，增加SR相關服務則受到人力分配的影響；醫學圖書館與實證醫學中心雙方之間合作密切，好處是可以互相協助，缺點則是館員的工作增加。

根據研究結果所提出之建議包括：鼓勵臺灣臨床人員與館員合作撰寫SR文章、國家制定相關政策鼓勵臨床人員撰寫SR、參考國外醫學圖書館已提供的SR相關服務、制定支援SR文獻檢索需求的策略、制定醫學圖書館員與臨床人員合作撰寫SR的配套措施、圖資相關科系增設SR相關的課程內容、館員積極參與各項SR相關課程或研討會及增進醫學圖書館與實證醫學中心的合作。

Systematic Reviews (SR) integrate relevant studies on a specific topic and are useful in decision-making. Librarians are professionals in retrieving suitable and high-quality literature, and their participation in SR warrants study.

This study provides a global overview of SR articles and used bibliometrics to analyze differences among the number of authors, country of the main author’s institution, and number of citing and times cited of medical librarians participating in SR and general SR articles. The research objects were 22 journals in the MEDLINE database. The number of SR articles published between 2014 and 2017 totaled 9,030. To obtain the perspectives of medical librarians and directors of evidence-based medicine center, this study used interviews to explore the current situation of Taiwanese medical librarians participating in SR; the interviews covered the SR-related services provide, librarians’ and directors’ experience in SR writing, opinions on librarians participating in SR, and their relationships between departments. Three medical librarians who contributed to SR articles or posters and three directors of the evidence-based medicine center of their institution were interviewed.

The results of the study revealed the following:
(1) In terms of the global SR article overview, the number of SR articles with librarian participation increased yearly. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews had the most articles. 
(2) In terms of author characteristics, most SR articles had three to seven authors. The main authors with librarian participation in SR were from the United States, and general SR were from the United Kingdom. Librarians in highly developed countries had a higher rate of participation in SR. 
(3) In terms of SR article citations, no significant correlation was observed between librarian participation and number of citing, and librarian participation and times cited had a weak negative correlation.
(4) In terms the SR participation of the interviewed medical librarians and directors of evidence-based medicine center, medical libraries were discovered to focus on SR literature retrieval services, whereas evidence-based medicine centers were found to focus on offering courses. Regarding SR writing experience, the number of authors who participated in writing SR articles is between four and seven. Most librarians assisted in SR literature retrieval. PRISMA was the most commonly followed guideline in SR writing. A background in the department of library and information science helped librarians to participate. Both medical librarians and directors expected more librarians to participate in SR. The main factors affecting Taiwanese librarians’ participation in SR were service department environment, supervisor’s attitude, and personal factors. Increasing SR-related services is affected by the personnel distribution. Medical libraries and evidence-based medicine centers cooperate closely. Although they can assist each other, the librarians’ work increases.

Suggestions based on the findings of this study are as follows: 
(1) Taiwanese clinical staff should be encouraged to cooperate with librarians to write SR articles.
(2) The government should formulate policies to encourage clinical staff to write SR.
(3) SR-related services provided by foreign medical libraries should be referred.
(4) Strategies should be formulated for supportive SR literature retrieval needs.
(5) Plans are required to support medical librarian and clinical staff cooperation in SR writing.
(6) Departments of library and information science should offer SR-related courses.
(7) Librarians should actively participate in SR-related courses and seminars.
(8) Cooperation between medical libraries and evidence-based medicine centers should be enhanced.

目次
第一章	緒論 1
第一節	研究背景與動機 1
第二節	研究目的與問題 5
第三節	研究範圍與限制 6
第四節	名詞解釋	8
第二章	文獻探討	11
第一節	實證醫學	11
第二節	系統性文獻回顧 15
第三節	醫學圖書館員與SR	27
第四節	醫學圖書館員專業能力與繼續教育 36
第三章	研究設計與實施 45
第一節	研究設計	45
第二節	研究對象	48
第三節	研究工具	52
第四節	資料處理	56
第五節	研究步驟與實施程序 61
第四章	研究結果與討論 65
第一節	全球SR文章概況 65
第二節	有館員參與SR與一般SR之作者特徵 72
第三節	有館員參與SR與一般SR之引文差異 81
第四節	臺灣醫學圖書館員與實證醫學中心主任參與SR之現況 85
第五章	結論與建議 119
第一節	結論 119
第二節	建議 127
第三節	未來研究建議 130
參考文獻 135
附錄一 PRISMA 檢核表 145
附錄二 本研究篩選之期刊列表、其所刊登的SR文章數及其所屬學科領域 148
附錄三 醫學圖書館員訪談大綱 150
附錄四 實證醫學中心主任訪談大綱 151
附錄五 受訪同意書 152

表次
表1 實證醫學文獻等級 14
表2 敘述性評論及SR的差異 16
表3 SR報告的偏差類型與定義 19
表4 SR相關專業組織 22
表5 SR撰寫規範整理 26
表6 SR規範中圖書館員參與SR之建議 29
表7 SR能力架構 39
表8 臺灣醫學圖書館員於美國醫學圖書館學會的年會參展海報主題 43
表9 本研究篩選之期刊列表 50
表10 本研究之醫學圖書館與實證醫學中心清單 51
表11 受訪者背景資料與訪談日期 52
表12 醫學圖書館員之半結構式深度訪談大綱 54
表13 實證醫學中心主任之半結構式深度訪談大綱	55
表14 各年SR文章數及佔比 69
表15 不同版本文章在館員參與、作者數及引用篇數之分布 71
表16 有館員參與SR之作者數 73
表17 一般SR之作者數 74
表18 有館員參與SR之第一作者所屬機構國別 76
表19 一般SR之第一作者所屬機構國別 77
表20 有館員參與SR之通訊作者所屬機構國別 78
表21 一般SR之通訊作者所屬機構國別 79
表22 臺灣作者為主要作者且有館員參與SR的書目資料 81
表23 受訪者基本資料 85

圖次
圖1 2009-2018年MEDLINE所收錄SR文獻量及其佔比 2
圖2 6S資料模型 13
圖3 本研究架構圖 47
圖4 研究流程圖 63
圖5 有館員參與SR之檢索過程 67
圖6 有館員參與SR之各年文章數 67
圖7 SR文章的更新時機 70
圖8 SR文章之作者數盒狀圖 75
圖9 SR文章之引用篇數盒狀圖 82
圖10 SR文章之被引用次數盒狀圖 84

Beverley, C. A., Booth, A., & Bath, P. A. (2003). The role of the information specialist in the systematic review process: A health information case study. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 20, 65-74. doi:10.1046/j.1471-1842.2003.00411.x
Bodleian Libraries. (2015). Systematic Reviews. Retrieved from https://libguides.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/systematic-reviews/home
Campbell, S., & Dorgan, M. (2015). What to do when everyone wants you to collaborate: Managing the demand for library support in systematic review searching. Journal of the Canadian Health Libraries Association, 36(1), 11-19. doi:10.29173/jchla/jabsc.v36i1.24353
Chalmers, I., Hedges, L. V., & Cooper, H. (2002). A brief history of research synthesis. Evaluation and the Health Professions, 25(1), 12–37.
Cochrane. (2018a). Cochrane Library: Cochrane Reviews. Retrieved from https://www.cochrane.org/about-us
Cochrane. (2018b). Cochrane training. Retrieved from https://training.cochrane.org/
Cook, D. J., Mulrow, C. D., & Haynes, R. B. (1997). Systematic reviews: Synthesis of best evidence for clinical decisions. Ann Intern Med, 126, 376-380. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-126-5-199703010-00006
Cooper, I. D., & Crum, J. A. (2013). New activities and changing roles of health sciences librarians: A systematic review, 1990-2012. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 101(4), 268-77. doi: 10.3163/1536-5050.101.4.008
Cornell University Library. (2018). Cornell University Library Systematic Review Service. Retrieved from https://www.library.cornell.edu/services/systematic-review
Crumley, E. T., Wiebe, N., Cramer, K., Klassen, T. P., & Hartling, L. (2005), Which resources should be used to identify RCT/CCTs for systematic reviews: a systematic review, BMC Medical Research Methodology 2005, 5(24). doi:10.1186/1471-2288-5-24
Dicenso, A., Bayley, L., & Haynes, R. B. (2009). Accessing pre‐appraised evidence: fine‐tuning the 5S model into a 6S model. Evidence Based Nursing, 12, 99-101.
Dudden, R. F., & Protzko, S. L. (2011). The systematic review team: Contributions of the health sciences librarian. Medical Reference Services Quarterly, 30(3), 301-315. doi:10.1080/02763869.2011.590425
Eden, J., Levit, L., Berg, A., & Morton, S. (Eds.). (2011). Finding What Works in Health Care: Standards for Systematic Reviews. Washington (DC): National Academies Press.
Elsevier. (2018). Embase - Elsevier Taiwan. Retrieved from https://www.elsevier.com/zh-tw/solutions/embase-biomedical-research
Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. (1992). Evidence-based medicine: a new approach to teaching the practice of medicine. JAMA 1992, 268, 2420-2425. doi:10.1001/jama.1992.03490170092032
Foster, M. J. (2015). An overview of the role of librarians in systematic reviews: from expert search to project manager. Journal of EAHIL, 11 (3), 3-7.
Foster, M., Halling, T. D., & Pepper, C. (2018). Systematic reviews training for librarians: Planning, developing and evaluating. Journal of EAHIL, 14 (1), 4–8.
Garner, P., Hopewell, S., Chandler, J., MacLehose, H., Schünemann, H. J., Akl, E. A.,  Panel for updating guidance for systematic reviews. (2016). When and how to update systematic reviews: consensus and checklist. BMJ, 354, i3507. doi:10.1136/bmj.i3507
Golder, S., Loke, Y., & McIntosh, H. M. (2008). Poor reporting and inadequate searches were apparent in systematic reviews of adverse effects. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 61(5), 438-448. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.06.005
Gore, G. C., & Jones, J. (2015). Systematic reviews and librarians: A primer for managers. The Canadian Journal of Library and Information Practice and Research, 10(1). doi:10.21083/partnership.v10i1.3343
Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 26, 91-108. doi:10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x
Guyatt, G. H. (1991). Evidence-based medicine. ACP J Club. 114(2). A-16. doi:10.7326/ACPJC-1991-114-2-A16.htm
Hardi, A. C., & Fowler, S. A. (2014). Evidence-based medicine and systematic review services at Becker Medical Library. Missouri medicine, 111(5), 416–418.
Harris, M. R. (2005). The librarian's roles in the systematic review process: a case study. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 93(1), 81-87.
Haynes, R. B. (2006). Of studies, syntheses, synopses, summaries, and systems: the “5S” evolution of information services for evidence-based healthcare decisions. BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine, 11(6), 162-164. doi: 10.1136/ebm.11.6.162-a
Higgins, J. P., & Green, S. (2011). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0. [ updated March 2011]. Cochrane. Retrieved form http://handbook-5-1.cochrane.org/
Higgins, J., & Thomas, J. (2019). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.0 [updated July 2019]. Cochrane. Retrieved from https://training.cochrane.org/handbook/current
Koffel, J. B. (2015). Use of Recommended Search Strategies in Systematic Reviews and the Impact of Librarian Involvement: A Cross-Sectional Survey of Recent Authors. PLoS ONE. 10(5): e0125931. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0125931
Kung, J., & Chambers, T. (2019). Implementation of a fee-based service model to university-affiliated researchers at the University of Alberta. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 107(2), 238–243. doi:10.5195/jmla.2019.497
Last, J. M. (2001). A dictionary of epidemiolog. 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Li, L., Tian, J., Tian, H., Moher, D., Liang, F., Jiang, T., Yao, L., & Yang, K. (2014). Network meta-analyses could be improved by searching more sources and by involving a librarian. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 67(9), 1001-1007. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.04.003
MacLehose, H., (2019). Withdrawing published Cochrane Reviews. Retrieved form https://documentation.cochrane.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=117381725
McGowan, J., & Sampson, M. (2005). Systematic reviews need systematic searchers. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 93(1), 74-80.
McKeown, S., & Ross-White, A. (2019). Building capacity for librarian support and addressing collaboration challenges by formalizing library systematic review services. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 107(3), 411–419. doi:10.5195/jmla.2019.443
McKibbon, K. A. (1998). Evidence-based practice. Bulletin of the Medical Library Association, 86(3), 396-401.
McKibbon, K. A. (2006). Systematic reviews and librarians. Library Trends. 55(1), 202-215.
Mead, T. L., & Richards, D. T. (1995). Librarian participation in meta-analysis projects. Bulletin of the Medical Library Association, 83(4), 461-464.
Medical Library Association. (2005). Role of expert searching in health sciences libraries. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 93(1), 42-44.
Medical Library Association. (2017). Medical Library Association Competencies for Lifelong Learning and Professional Success. Retrieved from https://www.mlanet.org/p/cm/ld/fid=1217
Medical Library Association. (2018). Continuing Education (CE). Retrieved from https://www.mlanet.org/p/cm/ld/fid=412
Meert, D., Torabi, N., & Costella, J. (2016). Impact of librarians on reporting of the literature searching component of pediatric systematic reviews. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 104(4), 267–277. doi:10.3163/1536-5050.104.4.004
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & the PRISMA Group. (2009). Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009, 151, 264-269. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135
Murphy, S. A., & Boden, C. (2015). Benchmarking participation of Canadian university health sciences librarians in systematic reviews. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 103(2), 73-78. doi: 10.3163/1536-5050.103.2.003
National Library of Medicine. (2018). MEDLINE®: Description of the Database. Retrieved from https://www.nlm.nih.gov/bsd/medline.html
Nicholson, J., McCrillis, A., & Williams, J. D. (2017). Collaboration challenges in systematic reviews: A survey of health sciences librarians. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 105(4), 385-393. doi:10.5195/jmla.2017.176
NIH Library. (2018). Systematic Review Service. Retrieved from https://www.nihlibrary.nih.gov/services/systematic-review-service
Rethlefsen, M. L., Farrell, A. M., Trzasko, L. C. O., & Brigham, T. J. (2015). Librarian co-authors correlated with higher quality reported search strategies in general internal medicine systematic reviews. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 68(6), 617-626. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.11.025
Richardson, W. S., Wilson, M. C., Nishikawa, J., & Hayward, R. S. (1995). The well-built clinical question: a key to evidence-based decisions. ACP journal club, 123(3). A-12
Ross-White, A. (2016). Librarian involvement in systematic reviews at Queen’s University: An environmental scan. Journal of the Canadian Health Libraries Association, 37(2). doi:10.5596/c16-016
Roth, S. C. (2018). Transforming the systematic review service: A team-based model to support the educational needs of researchers. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 106(4), 514-520.
Sackett, D. L., Rosenberg, W. M. C., Gray, J. A. M., Haynes, R. B., & Richardson, W. S. (1996). Evidence based medicine: What it is and what it isn’t. BMJ, 312, 71-72. doi:10.1136/bmj.312.7023.71 
Sackett, D. L., Straus, S. E., Richardson, W. S., Rosenberg, W., & Haynes, R. B. (2000). Evidence-Based Medicine. How to Practice and Teach EBM. 2nd ed. New York: Churchill Livingstone.
Schell, C. L., & Rathe, R. J. (1992). Meta-analysis: A tool for medical and scientific discoveries. Bulletin of the Medical Library Association, 80(3), 219-222.
Scopus. (2014). Scopus Content Coverage Guide. Retrieved from https://www.elsevier.com/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/69451/0597-Scopus-Content-Coverage-Guide-US-LETTER-v4-HI-singles-no-ticks.pdf
Sen, B., Villa, R., & Chapman, E. (2014). The roles, skills, training needs and contributions of health library and information professionals. Journal of the European Association for Health Information and Libraries, 10(2), 11-14.
Spencer, A. J., & Eldredge, J. D. (2018). Roles for librarians in systematic reviews: A scoping review. Journal of the Medical Library Association , 106(1), 46-56. doi:10.5195/jmla.2018.82.
Townsend, W. A., Anderson, P. F., Ginier, E. C., MacEachern, M. P., Saylor, K. M., Shipman, B. L., & Smith, J. E. (2017). A competency framework for librarians involved in systematic reviews. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 105(3), 268-275. doi: 10.5195/JMLA.2017.189.
WILEY. (2018). Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials (CENTRAL): Cochrane Library. Retrieved from https://www.cochranelibrary.com/central/about-central
王慧瑜、劉人瑋、葉明功（2018）。有效進行系統性文獻回顧與統合分析研究。臺灣臨床藥學雜誌，26(1)，1-10。
朱玉芬（2004）。論述醫學圖書館員角色。醫學教育，8(4)，434-443。
成功大學醫學圖書分館與成大醫院教學中心（2019）。成功大學醫學院/成功大學醫院 實證醫學資源，檢索自http://www.medlib.ncku.edu.tw/ebm/index.html。
林素甘、柯皓仁（2007）。圖書館館員專業知能與繼續教育。國家圖書館館刊，96(2)，31-63。
邱子恆（2012）。醫學圖書館medical library。圖書館學與資訊科學大辭典。檢索自http://terms.naer.edu.tw/detail/1679094/
邱子恒（2011）。臺灣醫學圖書館員繼續教育現況與需求之研究。圖書資訊學研究，6(1)，69-102。
邵婉卿（2017）。專門圖書館。在中華民國一○六年圖書館年鑑（頁 227-246）。臺北市：國家圖書館。
財團法人醫藥品查驗中心（2015）。臨床診療指引(Clinical practice guideline) - 國家醫療科技評估中心。檢索自http://nihta.cde.org.tw/Knowledge/cyclopedia_more?id=28
張慧銖、邱子恆（1997）。醫學圖書館員的繼續教育。大學圖書館，2(2)，16-33。
梁君卿（2015）。專門圖書館。在中華民國一○四年圖書館年鑑（頁 165-176）。臺北市：國家圖書館。
梁君卿（2016）。專門圖書館。在中華民國一○五年圖書館年鑑（頁 169-186）。臺北市：國家圖書館。
梁繼權（1997）。實證醫學：臨床問題解決之探討。醫學教育，1(2)，90-91。
郭斐然、梁繼權（2006）．實證醫學簡介及臨床應用。臺灣家庭醫學研究，4(2)，91-103。
陳向明（2002）。社會科學質的研究。臺北市：五南圖書出版公司。
陳杰峰（2010）。系統性回顧與實證醫學應用。醫療爭議審查報導，44，13-14。
陳瑞琳、林怡君、陳恆理、賴玉玲（2009）。實證醫學。臺灣牙周病醫學會雜誌，14(1)，43-49。
陸希平、陳佳玉、周明仁（2004）。實證醫學的應用。中山醫學雜誌，15(2)，251-259。
臺北榮民總醫院-教學部實證醫學中心（2015）。諮詢預約服務。檢索自https://wd.vghtpe.gov.tw/ebm/Fpage.action?muid=7&fid=9077
劉淑容（2017）。醫學圖書館員參與系統性文獻回顧之研究 （未出版之碩士論文）。淡江大學，新北市。
潘淑滿（2003）。質性研究 : 理論與應用。臺北市：心理出版社公司。
衛生福利部（2015）。衛生福利部：醫病共享決策平台。檢索自https://sdm.patientsafety.mohw.gov.tw/Index
衛生福利部中央健康保險署（2004）。臨床診療指引制定手冊 - 衛生福利部中央健康保險署。檢索自https://www.nhi.gov.tw/resource/webdata/attach_613_1_cpg.doc