Our Services
The Library offers support towards research staff (including PhD-students), clinicians, and students who are in the process of undertaking a systematic review. We do this in the form of (free) one-on-one consultations, online workshops, self-study modules, walk-in hours, and by providing access to tools such as Covidence.
Online Workshops
All our trainings are globally accessible and aimed at both staff and students. Currently, we offer two workshops:
1.”Search Strategies for Systematic & Scoping Reviews” – In this training, the requirements for search strategies in systematic reviews and scoping reviews are discussed, and you will be taught on how to conduct a proper search.
2. “AI in Reviews” – In this training, information will be given how AI can (and cannot) assist in review methodology, such as during searching, screening, or data extraction.
Walk-In hour
For students who are currently working as part of their bachelor or master thesis on a review, an online walk-in hour is available every Friday from 10-11am. You do not need to sign up beforehand. This walk-in hour is also available for Medicine students who have questions concerning the University Library aspects of the critical professional track. Click here to join the session via Teams.
Self-study modules
We offer a number of self-study modules. The general steps to synthesising a review module covers the entire process. Other modules zoom in on specific steps such as determining the scope, goals, and review method (determining your inclusion/exclusion criteria, review methods, a Guide to Grey Literature), searching for literature (database searching, searching PubMed, searching Embase, searching Web of Science, A Guide to Grey Literature), and identifying the relevant sources within your search results (deduplication, screening, screening with ASReview).
Screening support (Covidence & ASReview)
Currently, the team offers support for the screening tools Covidence and ASReview.
1. Covidence: As of 2025, the University Library has an institution-wide license to Covidence for the MUMC+ and the UM. Students and employees are able to utilise the full version of Covidence. For more information on how to use it, please check our page on Covidence and check the Knowledge Center on Covidence’s website.
2. ASReview: In case that you are dealing with a large amount of records in your dataset (>2500), it is likely to be beneficial to utilise ASReview instead of performing full manual screening. For more information, please consult the ASReview module. If you are an employee and would like additional guidance, please submit a request through the form below and select “I would like support on utilising ASReview”. You can also read our validation paper here, where we also provide our recommendations.
Individual support | Staff only
All individual support options start with a free online intake meeting and can be requested using the webform below. More information of the levels of individual support offered can be found below under Individual support options. We aim to respond to support requests within one working week. If you haven’t received a response two weeks after submission, please contact us via Ask Your Librarian.
Individual support options
Basic support is free of charge. Extended and outsourced support are subject to charges. We will provide an overview of the exact costs on request. Please find below more details on the various support options.
Basic
1 intake meeting (1 hour) to discuss
- Research question, review type, eligibility criteria;
- Database selection;
- Setup initial search for 1 database of choice;
- Review process in general.
1-2 follow-up consults (~30 minutes) to fine tune the search for the first database.
1 follow-up consult (~30 minutes) to advise on translation to other databases.
1 round of written feedback on translations.
Optional:
- Consult (1 hour) to advise on grey literature searching and/or handsearching.
- Help with peer-review feedback related to the search strategy.
Benefits & drawbacks
Requires a good basic understanding of systematic searching (e.g. use our training opportunities) as there are limited feedback and optimisation opportunities.
Available for
- All research staff including PhD candidates
- Clinical staff
Free of charge
Mention library support in acknowledgments.
Extended
Everything listed under “Basic” plus
- Additional consults to fine-tune searches across all databases.
- Exporting & deduplicating search results.
- Final search strategy write-up for publication.
- Help with full text retrieval (post-tiab-screening).
Benefits & drawbacks
Essentially co-developing your search strategy with an information specialist. High confidence in quality of overall search strategy, saves time and you still learn how this works.
Available for
- All research staff, including PhD candidates
- Clinical staff
Price upon request
Mention library support in acknowledgments or co-authorship.
Outsourced
1 intake meeting (1 hour) to discuss
- Research question, review type, eligibility criteria;
- Database selection;
- Setup initial search for 1 database of choice;
- Review process in general.
Information specialist prepares preliminary search for one database.
Information specialist finetunes search based on customer feedback (email or consult).
Once approved, Information specialist translates search across databases.
Exporting & deduplicating search results
Final search strategy write-up for publication.
Benefits & drawbacks
Fastest way to a search strategy meeting international criteria.
Available for
- All research staff, excluding PhD candidates
- Clinical staff
Price upon request
Mention library support in acknowledgments or co-authorship.
Systematic review support request form
Bibliography
Ruiter, F. A. A. (2026). Towards Citation Justice: Ensuring an Inclusive Search and Literature Retrieval. KULA: Knowledge Creation, Dissemination, and Preservation Studies, 9(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.18357/kula.311
Verdonschot, R. G., Dilles, T., Cahir, C., De Graef, M., Holis, R. V., Fryden, J., Denig, P., Grimes, T., Karapinar-Carkit, F., & Schor, M. (2026). To include or not to include? A prescription from the pharmacy on how to use active learning-assisted screening in systematic reviews. Syst Rev, 15(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-026-03185-y
Background
Academic reviews serve as a solid basis as to establish the latest state of affairs on a specific topic. Authors of scoping reviews, systematic reviews and meta-analyses should aim to include all available relevant studies. The systematic literature search therefore needs to be of the highest quality.
Strict guidelines for literature search are laid out in the Prisma Statements, Cochrane Handbook, JBI Reviewer’s Handbook and PRESS process in the PRESS statement. These guidelines dictate that, at the very least, two databases need to be searched with a highly sensitive and complete search strategy.
The UM Library Information specialists are experts in the efficient execution of systematic literature searches. Research indicates that support by an information specialist increases the quality of the literature search and reporting of the search (Meert et al., 2016; Roffel, 2015; Rethlefsen et al.,2015).
“Librarians bring expertise to the review process based on their understanding of the medical literature, search methods, and review guidelines and standards. Their neutrality and expertise can help minimize bias in the review process, leading to more robust and unbiased review articles”
Rethlefsen, Murad & Livingston (in JAMA, 2014, p. 1000)
Testimonials
After many fights with PubMed and other search engines, we got great help to solve our issues and to make our search more comprehensive.
Unfortunately, not all PubMed-fights could be resolved but I’m still more confident about the search that we ended up with!
It is recommendable to consult the library when starting a systematic review.
The librarian gave me some very practical tips, for example using EndNote and posed some critical questions that made my approach much more robust and easier to reproduce.
At the end of my scoping study, I presented it again to the librarian. I found his tips and assessment of my work, in a relatively short time, very valuable.
The librarian came to the rescue by suggesting some useful ways of tracing relevant publications (snowballing) but also helped me brush up on my search strategy and offered tips on making it more efficient.
