Resource use during systematic review production varies widely: a scoping review: response to Nussbaumer-Streit et al.

Morales-Plaza, Cristhian David; Forero‐Peña, David A.; Carrión‐Nessi, Fhabián S.

doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.10.008

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 3 publications

(4 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Dedicated commercial tools exist to help medical researchers conduct systematic literature reviews. They are usually customised to medical reviews and require purchasing a subscription which can be a bottleneck to academic researchers from lower-and lower-middle income countries [28,30].…”

Section: Systematic Review Toolboxesmentioning

confidence: 99%

CRUISE-Screening: Living Literature Reviews Toolbox

Kusa,

Knoth,

Hanbury

2023

Proceedings of the 32nd ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Keeping up with research and finding related work is still a timeconsuming task for academics. Researchers sift through thousands of studies to identify a few relevant ones. Automation techniques can help by increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of this task. To this end, we developed CRUISE-Screening, a web-based application for conducting living literature reviews -a type of literature review that is continuously updated to reflect the latest research in a particular field. CRUISE-Screening is connected to several search engines via an API, which allows for updating the search results periodically. Moreover, it can facilitate the process of screening for relevant publications by using text classification and question answering models. CRUISE-Screening can be used both by researchers conducting literature reviews and by those working on automating the citation screening process to validate their algorithms. The application is open-source, 1 and a demo is available under this URL: https://citation-screening.ec.tuwien.ac.at. We discuss the limitations of our tool in Appendix A.

show abstract

Section: Systematic Review Toolboxesmentioning

confidence: 99%