An exploration of available methods and tools to improve the efficiency of systematic review production: a scoping review

AFFENGRUBER, Lisa, Miriam M VAN DER MATEN, Isa SPIERO, Barbara NUSSBAUMER-STREIT, Mersiha MAHMIC-KAKNJO, Moriah E ELLEN, Kaethe GOOSSEN, Lucia HASONOVÁ, Lotty HOOFT, Nicoletta RIVA, Georgios POULENTZAS, Panagiotis Nikolaos LALAGKAS, Anabela G SILVA, Michele SASSANO, Raluca SFETCU, Maria E MARQUES, Tereza FRIESSOVÁ, Eduard BALADIA, Angelo Maria PEZZULLO, Patricia MARTINEZ, Gerald GARTLEHNER a Rene SPIJKER. An exploration of available methods and tools to improve the efficiency of systematic review production: a scoping review. BMC Medical Research Methodology. LONDON: BioMed Central, 2024, roč. 24, č. 1, s. 1-18. ISSN 1471-2288. Dostupné z: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-024-02320-4.

Základní údaje

• Originální název: An exploration of available methods and tools to improve the efficiency of systematic review production: a scoping review
• Autoři: AFFENGRUBER, Lisa, Miriam M VAN DER MATEN, Isa SPIERO, Barbara NUSSBAUMER-STREIT, Mersiha MAHMIC-KAKNJO, Moriah E ELLEN, Kaethe GOOSSEN, Lucia HASONOVÁ (703 Slovensko, domácí), Lotty HOOFT, Nicoletta RIVA, Georgios POULENTZAS, Panagiotis Nikolaos LALAGKAS, Anabela G SILVA, Michele SASSANO, Raluca SFETCU, Maria E MARQUES, Tereza FRIESSOVÁ (203 Česká republika, domácí), Eduard BALADIA, Angelo Maria PEZZULLO, Patricia MARTINEZ, Gerald GARTLEHNER a Rene SPIJKER.
• Vydání: BMC Medical Research Methodology, LONDON, BioMed Central, 2024, 1471-2288.

Další údaje

• Originální jazyk: angličtina
• Typ výsledku: Článek v odborném periodiku
• Obor: 30230 Other clinical medicine subjects
• Stát vydavatele: Velká Británie a Severní Irsko
• Utajení: není předmětem státního či obchodního tajemství
• WWW: URL
• Impakt faktor: Impact factor: 4.000 v roce 2022
• Organizační jednotka: Lékařská fakulta
• Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-024-02320-4
• UT WoS: 001315080700001
• Klíčová slova anglicky: Rapid review; Systematic review; Evidence synthesis; Scoping review; Method; Automation tools
• Štítky: 14110611, 14119612, 14119613, rivok
• Příznaky: Mezinárodní význam, Recenzováno

Anotace

BackgroundSystematic reviews (SRs) are time-consuming and labor-intensive to perform. With the growing number of scientific publications, the SR development process becomes even more laborious. This is problematic because timely SR evidence is essential for decision-making in evidence-based healthcare and policymaking. Numerous methods and tools that accelerate SR development have recently emerged. To date, no scoping review has been conducted to provide a comprehensive summary of methods and ready-to-use tools to improve efficiency in SR production.ObjectiveTo present an overview of primary studies that evaluated the use of ready-to-use applications of tools or review methods to improve efficiency in the review process.MethodsWe conducted a scoping review. An information specialist performed a systematic literature search in four databases, supplemented with citation-based and grey literature searching. We included studies reporting the performance of methods and ready-to-use tools for improving efficiency when producing or updating a SR in the health field. We performed dual, independent title and abstract screening, full-text selection, and data extraction. The results were analyzed descriptively and presented narratively.ResultsWe included 103 studies: 51 studies reported on methods, 54 studies on tools, and 2 studies reported on both methods and tools to make SR production more efficient. A total of 72 studies evaluated the validity (n = 69) or usability (n = 3) of one method (n = 33) or tool (n = 39), and 31 studies performed comparative analyses of different methods (n = 15) or tools (n = 16). 20 studies conducted prospective evaluations in real-time workflows. Most studies evaluated methods or tools that aimed at screening titles and abstracts (n = 42) and literature searching (n = 24), while for other steps of the SR process, only a few studies were found. Regarding the outcomes included, most studies reported on validity outcomes (n = 84), while outcomes such as impact on results (n = 23), time-saving (n = 24), usability (n = 13), and cost-saving (n = 3) were less often evaluated.ConclusionFor title and abstract screening and literature searching, various evaluated methods and tools are available that aim at improving the efficiency of SR production. However, only few studies have addressed the influence of these methods and tools in real-world workflows. Few studies exist that evaluate methods or tools supporting the remaining tasks. Additionally, while validity outcomes are frequently reported, there is a lack of evaluation regarding other outcomes.