The main aim of this exploratory study is to address the gap in the literature related to burnout among information professionals who support systematic review (SR) research. Questionnaires were administered to information professionals supporting SR research. Employing the use of a validated tool for assessing burnout called the Copenhagen Burnout Inventory (CBI), a broad range of health sciences/medical librarians and information professionals were targeted via the MEDLIB-L list-serv, DOCLINE list-serv, and the Medical Library Association’s (MLA) MLANews. Questionnaire responses were captured electronically using Qualtrics. Quantitative analysis was undertaken using the rating system of the CBI and synthesis of results was done using qualitative techniquesand other statistical methods. Out of all respondents to complete the survey, 166 qualified as completed for the Personal Burnout scale with two questions skipped by two respondents (n=2); 159 qualified as completed for the Work Burnout scale with no questions skipped (n=0); and 151 qualified as completed for the Client Burnout scale with three questions skipped by four respondents (n=4). Qualifying responses are determined based on the rules of the CBI. According to the data, the majority of respondents experience a personal burnout score of 48.6, a work-related score of 46.4, followed by a client-related score of 32.5. Those who reported spending >80% of their job duties on SR work saw significantly lower total average burnout (28.6) than those who devoted less time to SR work (between 42 and 45). Notably, they also averaged much lower personal burnout (31.5) and client-related (19.4).The subgroups of Reference Librarian, Clinical Librarian, and Research Librarian experience the highest levels of burnout across all CBI scales. These job roles could be further investigated. Because of the unequal spread of sample sizes for the individual job titles, in future studies it may be beneficial to target these groups directly.