Accepted for/Published in: JMIR Medical Informatics
Date Submitted: Aug 28, 2021
Date Accepted: Mar 12, 2022
Warning: This is an author submission that is not peer-reviewed or edited. Preprints - unless they show as "accepted" - should not be relied on to guide clinical practice or health-related behavior and should not be reported in news media as established information.
Software Tools for Systematic Literature Review in Medicine: A Review and Feature Analysis
ABSTRACT
Background:
Systematic reviews (SRs) are central to evaluating therapies but have high costs in terms of both time and money. Many software tools exist to assist with SRs, but most tools do not support the full process, and transparency and replicability of SR depends on performing and presenting evidence according to established best practices.
Objective:
In order to provide a basis for comparing and selecting between software tools that support SR, we performed a feature-by-feature comparison of SR tools.
Methods:
We searched for SR tools by reviewing any such tool listed the Systematic Review Toolbox, previous reviews of SR tools, and qualitative Google searching. We included all SR tools that were currently functional, and require no coding and excluded reference managers, desktop applications, and statistical software. The list of features to assess was populated by combining all features assessed in four previous reviews of SR tools; we also added five features (Manual Addition, Screening Automation, Dual Extraction, Living review, Public outputs) that were independently noted as best practices or enhancements of transparency/replicability. Then, two reviewers assigned binary “present/absent” assessments to all SR tools with respect to all features, and a third reviewer adjudicated all disagreements.
Results:
Of 49 SR tools found, 27 were excluded, leaving 22 for assessment. Twenty-eight features were assessed across 6 classes, and the inter-observer agreement was 86.46%. DistillerSR, EPPI-Reviewer Web, and Nested Knowledge support the most features (24/28, 86%), followed by Covidence, SRDB.PRO, SysRev (20/28, 71%). Six tools support fewer than half of all features assessed: SyRF, Data Abstraction Assistant, SWIFT-review, SR-Accelerator, RobotReviewer, and COVID-NMA. Notably, only 9 of 22 tools (41%) support direct search, only four (18%) offer dual extraction, and only 9 (41%) offer living/updatable reviews.
Conclusions:
DistillerSR, EPPI-Reviewer Web, and Nested Knowledge each offer a high density of SR-focused web-based tools. By transparent comparison and discussion regarding SR tool functionality, the medical community can both choose among existing software offerings and note the areas of growth needed, most notably in the support of living reviews.
Citation
Request queued. Please wait while the file is being generated. It may take some time.
Copyright
© The authors. All rights reserved. This is a privileged document currently under peer-review/community review (or an accepted/rejected manuscript). Authors have provided JMIR Publications with an exclusive license to publish this preprint on it's website for review and ahead-of-print citation purposes only. While the final peer-reviewed paper may be licensed under a cc-by license on publication, at this stage authors and publisher expressively prohibit redistribution of this draft paper other than for review purposes.