Rapid review methods series: Guidance on the use of supportive software

This paper is part of a series of methodological guidance from the Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group. Rapid reviews (RRs) use modified systematic review methods to accelerate the review process while maintaining systematic, transparent and reproducible methods. This paper guides how to use supportive software for RRs. We strongly encourage the use of supportive software throughout RR production. Specifically, we recommend (1) using collaborative online platforms that enable working in parallel, allow for real-time project management and centralise review details; (2) using automation software to support, but not entirely replace a human reviewer and human judgement and (3) being transparent in reporting the methodology and potential risk for bias due to the use of supportive software

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

Background: 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. Objective: 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. Methods: 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. Results: 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. Conclusion: 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

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

Background: 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.Objective: 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.Methods: 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.Results: 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.Conclusion: 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.peer-reviewe

Detecting false exclusions in single-reviewer literature screening by using AI tools as secondary reviewers

The primary objective of this study is to evaluate the performance of four AI tools embedded in systematic review software (ASReview, DAISY, EPPI-Reviewer, and Rayyan) in detecting falsely excluded references as a secondary reviewer when assisting a single-reviewer during the title and abstract screening phase. The secondary objective is to evaluate the overall performance when using AI-assisted single-reviewer screening with different AI tools across all screening decisions

Predicting factors for studies falsely excluded during single-reviewer screening

To identify predicting factors on study-, abstract- and journal-level of studies falsely excluded during single-reviewer abstract screening

Evaluation of the ‘H2NOE Water Schools’ programme to promote water consumption in elementary schoolchildren: a non-randomised controlled cluster trial

AbstractObjective:This study evaluated a simple environmental intervention called ‘Water Schools’ in Lower Austria providing free refillable water bottles and educational material.Design:Non-randomised controlled cluster trial with three measurements: at baseline (T0), after the intervention at 9 months (T1) and after 1-year follow-up (T2).Setting:Half-day elementary schools in Lower Austria (Austria).Participants:Third-grade pupils from twenty-two schools in the intervention group (IG) and thirty-two schools in the control group (CG) participated in the study. Data were analysed for 569 to 598 pupils in the IG and for 545 to 613 in the CG, depending on the time of measurement.Results:The consumption of tap water increased in the IG from baseline to T1 and then decreased again at T2, but this was similar in the CG (no statistically significant difference in the time trend between the IG and CG). Similar results were seen for tap water consumption in the mornings. The proportion of children who only drank tap water on school mornings increased significantly from baseline to T1 in the IG compared to the CG (P = 0·020). No difference in the changes over time occurred between the groups for the proportion of pupils drinking approximately one bottle of tap water during school mornings.Conclusions:Not only the children in the IG but also those in the CG drank more tap water after 1 school year than at the beginning. The measurement of drinking habits in the CG may have been intervention enough to bring about changes or to initiate projects.</jats:sec

Testing the accuracy of single- versus dual-reviewer abstract screening: a crowd-based randomized controlled trial

This methods study assesses the accuracy of single- compared with dual-reviewer abstract screening and the impact of experience and domain knowledge of reviewers on the accuracy of abstract screening