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

• Published in: BMC medical research methodology Vol. 24; no. 1; pp. 210 - 18
• Main Authors: Affengruber, Lisa, van der Maten, Miriam M., Spiero, Isa, Nussbaumer-Streit, Barbara, Mahmić-Kaknjo, Mersiha, Ellen, Moriah E., Goossen, Käthe, Kantorova, Lucia, Hooft, Lotty, Riva, Nicoletta, Poulentzas, Georgios, Lalagkas, Panagiotis Nikolaos, Silva, Anabela G., Sassano, Michele, Sfetcu, Raluca, Marqués, María E., Friessova, Tereza, Baladia, Eduard, Pezzullo, Angelo Maria, Martinez, Patricia, Gartlehner, Gerald, Spijker, René
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England BioMed Central Ltd 18.09.2024; BioMed Central; BMC
• Subjects: Algorithms; Analysis; Automation; Automation tools; Data mining; Decision making; Efficiency; Evidence; Evidence synthesis; Grey literature; Humans; Medical research; Medicine, Experimental; Method; Methods; Rapid review; Research Design; Scientific literature; Scoping review; Secondary data analysis; Systematic review; Systematic Reviews as Topic - methods; Usability; Validity; Iran; Scoping review; Rapid review; Systematic review; Method; Evidence synthesis; Automation tools
• DOI: 10.1186/s12874-024-02320-4
• ISSN: 1471-2288

Systematic 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. To 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. We 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. We 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. For 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.