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

Kód výsledku v IS VaVaI

<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F00216224%3A14110%2F24%3A00137244" target="_blank" >RIV/00216224:14110/24:00137244 - isvavai.cz</a>

Výsledek na webu

<a href="https://bmcmedresmethodol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12874-024-02320-4" target="_blank" >https://bmcmedresmethodol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12874-024-02320-4</a>

DOI - Digital Object Identifier

<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-024-02320-4" target="_blank" >10.1186/s12874-024-02320-4</a>

Jazyk výsledku

angličtina

Název v původním jazyce

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

Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

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.

Název v anglickém jazyce

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

Popis výsledku anglicky

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.

Druh

J_imp - Článek v periodiku v databázi Web of Science

CEP obor

—

OECD FORD obor

30230 - Other clinical medicine subjects

Projekt

—

Návaznosti

I - Institucionalni podpora na dlouhodoby koncepcni rozvoj vyzkumne organizace

Rok uplatnění

2024

Kód důvěrnosti údajů

S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Název periodika

BMC Medical Research Methodology

ISSN

1471-2288

e-ISSN

1471-2288

Svazek periodika

24

Číslo periodika v rámci svazku

1

Stát vydavatele periodika

GB - Spojené království Velké Británie a Severního Irska

Počet stran výsledku

18

Strana od-do

1-18

Kód UT WoS článku

001315080700001

EID výsledku v databázi Scopus

2-s2.0-85204313868