Other formats:
BibTeX
LaTeX
RIS
@article{2439080,
author = {Affengruber, Lisa and van der Maten, Miriam M and Spiero, Isa and NussbaumerandStreit, Barbara and MahmicandKaknjo, Mersiha and Ellen, Moriah E and Goossen, Kaethe and Hasonová, Lucia and Hooft, Lotty and Riva, Nicoletta and Poulentzas, Georgios and Lalagkas, Panagiotis Nikolaos and Silva, Anabela G and Sassano, Michele and Sfetcu, Raluca and Marques, Maria E and Friessová, Tereza and Baladia, Eduard and Pezzullo, Angelo Maria and Martinez, Patricia and Gartlehner, Gerald and Spijker, Rene},
article_location = {LONDON},
article_number = {1},
doi = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-024-02320-4},
keywords = {Rapid review; Systematic review; Evidence synthesis; Scoping review; Method; Automation tools},
language = {eng},
issn = {1471-2288},
journal = {BMC Medical Research Methodology},
title = {An exploration of available methods and tools to improve the efficiency of systematic review production: a scoping review},
url = {https://bmcmedresmethodol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12874-024-02320-4},
volume = {24},
year = {2024}
}
TY - JOUR
ID - 2439080
AU - Affengruber, Lisa - van der Maten, Miriam M - Spiero, Isa - Nussbaumer-Streit, Barbara - Mahmic-Kaknjo, Mersiha - Ellen, Moriah E - Goossen, Kaethe - Hasonová, Lucia - Hooft, Lotty - Riva, Nicoletta - Poulentzas, Georgios - Lalagkas, Panagiotis Nikolaos - Silva, Anabela G - Sassano, Michele - Sfetcu, Raluca - Marques, Maria E - Friessová, Tereza - Baladia, Eduard - Pezzullo, Angelo Maria - Martinez, Patricia - Gartlehner, Gerald - Spijker, Rene
PY - 2024
TI - An exploration of available methods and tools to improve the efficiency of systematic review production: a scoping review
JF - BMC Medical Research Methodology
VL - 24
IS - 1
SP - 1-18
EP - 1-18
PB - BioMed Central
SN - 14712288
KW - Rapid review
KW - Systematic review
KW - Evidence synthesis
KW - Scoping review
KW - Method
KW - Automation tools
UR - https://bmcmedresmethodol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12874-024-02320-4
N2 - 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.
ER -
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 and Rene SPIJKER. An exploration of available methods and tools to improve the efficiency of systematic review production: a scoping review. \textit{BMC Medical Research Methodology}. LONDON: BioMed Central, 2024, vol.~24, No~1, p.~1-18. ISSN~1471-2288. Available from: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-024-02320-4.
|
