Další formáty:
BibTeX
LaTeX
RIS
@proceedings{1815958, author = {Affengruber, Lisa and van der Maten, Miriam and Hooft, Lotty and NussbaumerStreit, Barbara and MahmićandKaknjo, Mersiha and Marqués, María E. and Baladia, Eduard and Ellen, Moriah and Sfetcu, Raluca and Lalagkas, PanagiotisandNikolaos and Poulentzas, Georgios and Riva, Nicoletta and Gooßen, Käthe and Kantorová, Lucia and Sassano, Michele and Pezzullo, Angelo Maria and Martínez Asensio, Patricia and Gartlehner, Gerald and Spijker, René}, booktitle = {2nd Evidence -Based Research conference}, keywords = {systematic review; PROBAST; evidence synthesis}, language = {eng}, title = {Improving efficiency of systematic reviews production through an exploration of available methods and tools – a scoping review}, url = {http://evbres.eu/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Abstract-Book_2nd-EBR-Conf-2021_FINAL.pdf}, year = {2021} }
TY - CONF ID - 1815958 AU - Affengruber, Lisa - van der Maten, Miriam - Hooft, Lotty - NussbaumerStreit, Barbara - Mahmić-Kaknjo, Mersiha - Marqués, María E. - Baladia, Eduard - Ellen, Moriah - Sfetcu, Raluca - Lalagkas, Panagiotis-Nikolaos - Poulentzas, Georgios - Riva, Nicoletta - Gooßen, Käthe - Kantorová, Lucia - Sassano, Michele - Pezzullo, Angelo Maria - Martínez Asensio, Patricia - Gartlehner, Gerald - Spijker, René PY - 2021 TI - Improving efficiency of systematic reviews production through an exploration of available methods and tools – a scoping review KW - systematic review KW - PROBAST KW - evidence synthesis UR - http://evbres.eu/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Abstract-Book_2nd-EBR-Conf-2021_FINAL.pdf N2 - Aim The primary objective is to conduct a scoping review to explore evaluated and fully developed methods and tools used to improve the efficiency of systematic review (SR) production. The second objective is to map identified methods and tools against various context factors. Methods We conducted searches in Ovid, Embase, Scopus and Web of Science from 1997 for methods and from 2005 for tools to November 2020. Two reviewers performed study 18 selection independently. One reviewer is performing data abstraction, which a second one is checking. Two reviewers independently will assess the quality and applicability of included studies and underlying methods/tools by adapting the PROBAST (Prediction model study Risk Of Bias Assessment) Tool. We will summarize the results narratively and categorize them according to the steps of the SR process. We plan to map methods and tools against various contexts of evidence-synthesis (e.g. clinical/policy decision-making, informing new research). Results We identified 6314 references, of which 243 full texts were assessed. 70 references met our eligibility criteria. Currently, we are extracting the data of eligible studies. Results will be available at the time of the conference. Conclusion As a result of this research project, we will be able to give an overview of evaluated review methods and automation tools used to improve the efficiency of SR production and of their contexts of evidence-synthesis applicability. ER -
AFFENGRUBER, Lisa, Miriam VAN DER MATEN, Lotty HOOFT, Barbara NUSSBAUMERSTREIT, Mersiha MAHMI$\backslash$'C-KAKNJO, María E. MARQUÉS, Eduard BALADIA, Moriah ELLEN, Raluca SFETCU, Panagiotis-Nikolaos LALAGKAS, Georgios POULENTZAS, Nicoletta RIVA, Käthe GOOSSEN, Lucia KANTOROVÁ, Michele SASSANO, Angelo Maria PEZZULLO, Patricia MARTÍNEZ ASENSIO, Gerald GARTLEHNER a René SPIJKER. Improving efficiency of systematic reviews production through an exploration of available methods and tools – a scoping review. In \textit{2nd Evidence -Based Research conference}. 2021.
|