Systematic review automation tools improve efficiency but lack of knowledge impedes their adoption: a survey

Scott, Anna Mae; Forbes, Connor; Clark, Justin; Carter, Matt; Glasziou, Paul; Munn, Zachary

doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.06.030

Cited by 48 publications

(43 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The infrequent reporting of software tools is in contrast with a recent survey among systematic reviewers [ 33 ]. Here 89% of the respondents had used such tools previously and more than 50% had used them in at least half of their systematic reviews.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Reporting of methods to prepare, pilot and perform data extraction in systematic reviews: analysis of a sample of 152 Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews

Büchter

Weise

Pieper

2021

BMC Med Res Methodol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Previous research on data extraction methods in systematic reviews has focused on single aspects of the process. We aimed to provide a deeper insight into these methods by analysing a current sample of reviews. Methods We included systematic reviews of health interventions in humans published in English. We analysed 75 Cochrane reviews from May and June 2020 and a random sample of non-Cochrane reviews published in the same period and retrieved from Medline. We linked reviews with protocols and study registrations. We collected information on preparing, piloting, and performing data extraction and on use of software to assist review conduct (automation tools). Data were extracted by one author, with 20% extracted in duplicate. Data were analysed descriptively. Results Of the 152 included reviews, 77 reported use of a standardized extraction form (51%); 42 provided information on the type of form used (28%); 24 on piloting (16%); 58 on what data was collected (38%); 133 on the extraction method (88%); 107 on resolving disagreements (70%); 103 on methods to obtain additional data or information (68%); 52 on procedures to avoid data errors (34%); and 47 on methods to deal with multiple study reports (31%). Items were more frequently reported in Cochrane than non-Cochrane reviews. The data extraction form used was published in 10 reviews (7%). Use of software was rarely reported except for statistical analysis software and use of RevMan and GRADEpro GDT in Cochrane reviews. Covidence was the most frequent automation tool used: 18 reviews used it for study selection (12%) and 9 for data extraction (6%). Conclusions Reporting of data extraction methods in systematic reviews is limited, especially in non-Cochrane reviews. This includes core items of data extraction such as methods used to manage disagreements. Few reviews currently use software to assist data extraction and review conduct. Our results can serve as a baseline to assess the uptake of such tools in future analyses.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This is surprising considering that such modification of the data extraction process can save resources without compromising quality [ 3 ]. In developing such recommendations, relevant previous literature should be taken into account [ 3 – 5 , 13 , 23 , 28 , 30 , 33 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reporting of methods to prepare, pilot and perform data extraction in systematic reviews: analysis of a sample of 152 Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews

Büchter

Weise

Pieper

2021

BMC Med Res Methodol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Results from the search will be imported into Rayyan 54 , a scoping review manager software, whereby citations will be collated and duplicates will be removed. Although no current studies exist regarding the reliability and efficacy of using such automation tools, users have noted that the use of these tools saved time and increased accuracy 55 .…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Health literacy education programmes developed for qualified health professionals: a scoping review protocol

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Health literacy education, for health professionals, has been identified as having the potential to improve patient outcomes and has been recognized as such in policy developments. Health literacy, as a relational concept, encompasses individuals’ skills and how health information is processed in relation to the demands and complexities of the surrounding environment. Focus has been predominantly on the dimension of functional health literacy (reading, writing and numeracy), although increasing emphasis has been placed on interactive and critical domains. Such dimensions often guide the development of health professional education programmes, where the aim is to enhance the patient-practitioner relationship, and ultimately reduce the health literacy burden experienced by patients navigating health services. Currently little is known about qualified health professionals’ education in health literacy and communication skills, and development, implementation or evaluation of such interventions. Aim: To identify and map current educational interventions to improve health literacy competencies and communication skills of qualified health professionals. Methods: A scoping review will be conducted drawing on methods and guidance from the Joanna Briggs Institute, and will be reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) Checklist. This study will retrieve literature on health professional education for health literacy and communication skills through a comprehensive search strategy in the following databases: CINAHL; Medline (Ovid); the Cochrane Library; EMBASE; ERIC; UpToDate; PsycINFO. Grey literature will be searched within the references of identified articles; Lenus; ProQuest E-Thesis Portal; RIAN and OpenGrey. A data charting form will be developed with categories including: article details, demographics, intervention details, implementation and evaluation methods. Conclusion: Little is known about the extent and nature of the current evidence base therefore a scoping review will be conducted, in order to identify programme characteristics in relation to health literacy competencies and communication skills.

show abstract

“… 52 Looking to the future, it would be important to explore options how this process could be further facilitated, including through the application of advanced digital technologies and automation. 53 , 54 , 55 …”

Section: Utility Of Evidence Synthesis Products: Toward a More Solid ...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Lessons learnt: Undertaking rapid reviews on public health and social measures during a global pandemic

Rehfuess

Burns

Pfadenhauer

et al. 2022

Research Synthesis Methods

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Public health and social measures (PHSM) have been central to the COVID‐19 response. Consequently, there has been much pressure on decision‐makers to make evidence‐informed decisions and on researchers to synthesize the evidence regarding these measures. This article describes our experiences, responses and lessons learnt regarding key challenges when planning and conducting rapid reviews of PHSM during the COVID‐19 pandemic. Stakeholder consultations and scoping reviews to obtain an overview of the evidence inform the scope of reviews that are policy‐relevant and feasible. Multiple complementary reviews serve to examine the benefits and harms of PHSM across different populations and contexts. Conceiving reviews of effectiveness as adaptable living reviews helps to respond to evolving evidence needs and an expanding evidence base. An appropriately skilled review team and good planning, coordination and communication ensures smooth and rigorous processes and efficient use of resources. Scientific rigor, the practical implications of PHSM‐related complexity and likely time savings should be carefully weighed in deciding on methodological shortcuts. Making the best possible use of modeling studies represents a particular challenge, and methods should be carefully chosen, piloted and implemented. Our experience raises questions regarding the nature of rapid reviews and regarding how different types of evidence should be considered in making decisions about PHSM during a global pandemic. We highlight the need for readily available protocols for conducting studies on the effectiveness, unintended consequences and implementation of PHSM in a timely manner, as well as the need for rapid review standards tailored to “rapid” versus “emergency” mode reviewing.

show abstract

Systematic review automation tools improve efficiency but lack of knowledge impedes their adoption: a survey

Cited by 48 publications

References 12 publications

Reporting of methods to prepare, pilot and perform data extraction in systematic reviews: analysis of a sample of 152 Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews

Reporting of methods to prepare, pilot and perform data extraction in systematic reviews: analysis of a sample of 152 Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews

Health literacy education programmes developed for qualified health professionals: a scoping review protocol

Lessons learnt: Undertaking rapid reviews on public health and social measures during a global pandemic

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About