Usability and acceptability of four systematic review automation software packages : a mixed method design
AIM: New software packages help to improve the efficiency of conducting a systematic review through automation of key steps in the systematic review. The aim of this study was to gather qualitative data on the usability and acceptability of four systematic review automation software packages (Covidence, SRA-Helper for EndNote, Rayyan and RobotAnalyst) for the citation screening step of a systematic review.
METHODS: We recruited three volunteer systematic reviewers and asked them to use allocated software packages during citation screening. They then completed a 12-item online questionnaire which was tailored to capture data for the software packages used.
FINDINGS: All four software packages were reported to be easy or very easy to learn and use. SRA-Helper for EndNote was most favoured by participants for screening citations and Covidence for resolving conflicts. Overall, participants reported that SRA-Helper for EndNote would be their software package of choice, primarily due to its efficiency.
CONCLUSION: This study identified a number of considerations which systematic reviewers can use as a basis of their decision which software to use when performing the citation screening and dispute resolution steps of a systematic review.
| Medienart: |
E-Artikel |
|---|
| Erscheinungsjahr: |
2019 |
|---|---|
| Erschienen: |
2019 |
| Enthalten in: |
Zur Gesamtaufnahme - volume:8 |
|---|---|
| Enthalten in: |
Systematic reviews - 8(2019), 1 vom: 20. Juni, Seite 145 |
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
|---|
| Beteiligte Personen: |
Cleo, Gina [VerfasserIn] |
|---|
| Links: |
|---|
| Themen: |
Acceptability |
|---|
| Anmerkungen: |
Date Completed 27.07.2020 Date Revised 29.02.2024 published: Electronic Citation Status MEDLINE |
|---|
| doi: |
10.1186/s13643-019-1069-6 |
|---|
| funding: |
|
|---|---|
| Förderinstitution / Projekttitel: |
|
| PPN (Katalog-ID): |
NLM298373033 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | NLM298373033 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20240229232803.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 231225s2019 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1186/s13643-019-1069-6 |2 doi | |
| 028 | 5 | 2 | |a pubmed24n1311.xml |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)NLM298373033 | ||
| 035 | |a (NLM)31221212 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Cleo, Gina |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Usability and acceptability of four systematic review automation software packages |b a mixed method design |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2019 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a ƒaComputermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a ƒa Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 500 | |a Date Completed 27.07.2020 | ||
| 500 | |a Date Revised 29.02.2024 | ||
| 500 | |a published: Electronic | ||
| 500 | |a Citation Status MEDLINE | ||
| 520 | |a AIM: New software packages help to improve the efficiency of conducting a systematic review through automation of key steps in the systematic review. The aim of this study was to gather qualitative data on the usability and acceptability of four systematic review automation software packages (Covidence, SRA-Helper for EndNote, Rayyan and RobotAnalyst) for the citation screening step of a systematic review | ||
| 520 | |a METHODS: We recruited three volunteer systematic reviewers and asked them to use allocated software packages during citation screening. They then completed a 12-item online questionnaire which was tailored to capture data for the software packages used | ||
| 520 | |a FINDINGS: All four software packages were reported to be easy or very easy to learn and use. SRA-Helper for EndNote was most favoured by participants for screening citations and Covidence for resolving conflicts. Overall, participants reported that SRA-Helper for EndNote would be their software package of choice, primarily due to its efficiency | ||
| 520 | |a CONCLUSION: This study identified a number of considerations which systematic reviewers can use as a basis of their decision which software to use when performing the citation screening and dispute resolution steps of a systematic review | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Journal Article | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Acceptability | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Automation | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Qualitative report | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Software packages | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Systematic Review Accelerator | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Usability | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Scott, Anna Mae |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Islam, Farhana |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Julien, Blair |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Beller, Elaine |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t Systematic reviews |d 2012 |g 8(2019), 1 vom: 20. Juni, Seite 145 |w (DE-627)NLM217806902 |x 2046-4053 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:8 |g year:2019 |g number:1 |g day:20 |g month:06 |g pages:145 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-019-1069-6 |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_NLM | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 8 |j 2019 |e 1 |b 20 |c 06 |h 145 | ||