Systematic review automation technologies

Systematic Reviews

Volumn 3, Issue 1, 2014, Pages

  Tsafnat, Guy ^a   Glasziou, Paul ^b   Choong, Miew K ^a   Dunn, Adam ^a   Galgani, Filippo ^a   Coiera, Enrico ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES   (Australia)

^b BOND UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

Information extraction; Information retrieval; Process automation; Systematic reviews

Indexed keywords

AUTOMATION; DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM; EVIDENCE BASED PRACTICE; INFORMATION RETRIEVAL; INFORMATION SYSTEM; MACHINE LEARNING; MEDICAL INFORMATION; MEDICAL LITERATURE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; METHODOLOGY; NOTE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SYSTEM ANALYSIS; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW (TOPIC); TRANSLATIONAL RESEARCH; WEB BROWSER; INFORMATION PROCESSING; LITERATURE;

AUTOMATIC DATA PROCESSING; INFORMATION STORAGE AND RETRIEVAL; REVIEW LITERATURE AS TOPIC;

EID: 84910133822     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20464053     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/2046-4053-3-74     Document Type: Note

References (140)

1. Sackett DL, Straus S, Richardson WS, Rosenberg W, Haynes RB. Evidence-based Medicine: How to Teach and Practice EBM 2000, Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone.
2. Cochrane AL. 1931-1971: a critical review, with particular reference to the medical profession. Medicines for the Year 2000 1979, 1-11. London: Office of Health Economics.
3. Jaidee W, Moher D, Laopaiboon M. Time to update and quantitative changes in the results of cochrane pregnancy and childbirth reviews. PLoS One 2010, 5:e11553.
4. Bastian H, Glasziou P, Chalmers I. Seventy-five trials and eleven systematic reviews a day: how will we ever keep up?. PLoS Med 2010, 7:e1000326.
5. Tsafnat G, Dunn A, Glasziou P, Coiera E. The automation of systematic reviews. BMJ 2013, 346:f139.
6. Smith R, Chalmers I. Britain's gift: a " Medline" of synthesised evidence. BMJ 2001, 323:1437-1438.
7. Shojania KG, Sampson M, Ansari MT, Ji J, Doucette S, Moher D. How quickly do systematic reviews go out of date? A survival analysis. Ann Intern Med 2007, 147:224-233.
8. Takwoingi Y, Hopewell S, Tovey D, Sutton AJ. A multicomponent decision tool for prioritising the updating of systematic reviews. BMJ 2013, 347:f7191.
9. Adams CE, Polzmacher S, Wolff A. Systematic reviews: work that needs to be done and not to be done. J Evid-Based Med 2013, 6:232-235.
10. The Cochrane Collaboration Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions 2011, 51, http://www.cochrane.org/training/cochrane-handbook, The Cochrane Collaboration.
11. Glasziou P, Beller E, Thorning S, Vermeulen M. Manual for systematic reviews 2013, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia: Centre for Research on Evidence Based Medicine.
12. Rennels GD, Shortliffe EH, Stockdale FE, Miller PL. A computational model of reasoning from the clinical literature. Comput Methods Programs Biomed 1987, 24:139-149.
13. Wallace BC, Dahabreh IJ, Schmid CH, Lau J, Trikalinos TA. Modernizing the systematic review process to inform comparative effectiveness: tools and methods. J Comp Effect Res 2013, 2:273-282.
14. Coiera E. Information epidemics, economics, and immunity on the internet. BMJ 1998, 317:1469-1470.
15. Cohen AM, Adams CE, Davis JM, Yu C, Yu PS, Meng W, Duggan L, McDonagh M, Smalheiser NR. Evidence-based medicine, the essential role of systematic reviews, and the need for automated text mining tools. Proceedings of the 1st ACM International Health Informatics Symposium 2010, 376-380.
16. Counsell C. Formulating questions and locating primary studies for inclusion in systematic reviews. Ann Intern Med 1997, 127:380-387.
17. Oxman AD, Sackett DL, Guyatt GH, Group E-BMW. Users' guides to the medical literature: I. How to get started. JAMA 1993, 270:2093-2095.
18. Bragge P, Clavisi O, Turner T, Tavender E, Collie A, Gruen RL. The Global Evidence Mapping Initiative: scoping research in broad topic areas. BMC Med Res Methodol 2011, 11:92.
19. Snilstveit B, Vojtkova M, Bhavsar A, Gaarder M. Evidence Gap Maps-A Tool for Promoting Evidence-Informed Policy and Prioritizing Future Research 2013, Washington, DC: The World Bank.
20. Arksey H, O'Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Meth 2005, 8:19-32.
21. Bero L, Busuttil G, Farquhar C, Koehlmoos TP, Moher D, Nylenna M, Smith R, Tovey D. Measuring the performance of the Cochrane library. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012, 12. ED000048.
22. Smalheiser NR. Informatics and hypothesis-driven research. EMBO Rep 2002, 3:702.
23. Malhotra A, Younesi E, Gurulingappa H, Hofmann-Apitius M. 'HypothesisFinder:' a strategy for the detection of speculative statements in scientific text. PLoS Comput Biol 2013, 9:e1003117.
24. Cohen T, Whitfield GK, Schvaneveldt RW, Mukund K, Rindflesch T. EpiphaNet: an interactive tool to support biomedical discoveries. J Biomed Disc Collab 2010, 5:21.
25. Murray CJ. Quantifying the burden of disease: the technical basis for disability-adjusted life years. Bull World Health Organ 1994, 72:429.
26. Chalmers I, Glasziou P. Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence. Obst Gynecol 2009, 114:1341-1345.
27. Booth A, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Moher D, Petticrew M, Stewart L. An international registry of systematic-review protocols. Lancet 2011, 377:108-109.
28. Carini S, Sim I. SysBank: a knowledge base for systematic reviews of randomized clinical trials. AMIA Annual Symposium Proceedings 2003, 804. Washington, DC: American Medical Informatics Association.
29. Glanville J, Bayliss S, Booth A, Dundar Y, Fernandes H, Fleeman ND, Foster L, Fraser C, Fry-Smith A, Golder S, Lefebvre C, Miller C, Paisley S, Payne L, Price A, Welch K. So many filters, so little time: the development of a search filter appraisal checklist. J Med Libr Assoc 2008, 96:356-361.
30. Wong SS, Wilczynski NL, Haynes RB. Developing optimal search strategies for detecting clinically relevant qualitative studies in MEDLINE. Stud Health Technol Inform 2004, 107:311-316.
31. Wilczynski NL, Haynes RB. Developing optimal search strategies for detecting clinically sound prognostic studies in MEDLINE: an analytic survey. BMC Med 2004, 2:23.
32. Montori VM, Wilczynski NL, Morgan D, Haynes RB. Optimal search strategies for retrieving systematic reviews from Medline: analytical survey. BMJ 2005, 330:68.
33. Wilczynski NL, Haynes RB, Lavis JN, Ramkissoonsingh R, Arnold-Oatley AE. Optimal search strategies for detecting health services research studies in MEDLINE. CMAJ 2004, 171:1179-1185.
34. Haynes RB, Wilczynski NL. Optimal search strategies for retrieving scientifically strong studies of diagnosis from Medline: analytical survey. BMJ 2004, 328:1040.
35. Shojania KG, Bero LA. Taking advantage of the explosion of systematic reviews: an efficient MEDLINE search strategy. Eff Clin Pract 2000, 4:157-162.
36. Wilczynski NL, McKibbon KA, Haynes RB. Sensitive Clinical Queries retrieved relevant systematic reviews as well as primary studies: an analytic survey. J Clin Epidemiol 2011, 64:1341-1349.
37. Simmons RF. Answering English questions by computer: a survey. Commun ACM 1965, 8:53-70.
38. Kwok C, Etzioni O, Weld DS. Scaling question answering to the web. ACM Trans Inform Syst 2001, 19:242-262.
39. Dumais S, Banko M, Brill E, Lin J, Ng A. Web question answering: Is more always better?. Proceedings of the 25th Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval 2002, 291-298. Tampere, Finland. New York: ACM.
40. Collaboration RTC. Review Manager (RevMan). 4.2 for Windows 2003, Oxford, England: The Cochrane Collaboration.
41. Higgins J, Churchill R, Tovey D, Lasserson T, Chandler J. Update on the MECIR project: methodological expectations for Cochrane intervention. Cochrane Meth 2011, suppl. 1:2.
42. Tsafnat G, Coiera E. Computational reasoning across multiple models. J Am Med Info Assoc 2009, 16:768.
43. Sim I, Detmer DE. Beyond trial registration: a global trial bank for clinical trial reporting. PLoS Med 2005, 2:e365.
44. Sim I, Tu SW, Carini S, Lehmann HP, Pollock BH, Peleg M, Wittkowski KM. The Ontology of Clinical Research (OCRe): an informatics foundation for the science of clinical research. J Biomed Inform 2013
45. Balk EM, Chung M, Chen ML, Chang LKW, Trikalinos TA. Data extraction from machine-translated versus original language randomized trial reports: a comparative study. Syst Rev 2013, 2:97.
46. Greenhalgh T, Peacock R. Effectiveness and efficiency of search methods in systematic reviews of complex evidence: audit of primary sources. BMJ 2005, 331:1064.
47. Kuper H, Nicholson A, Hemingway H. Searching for observational studies: what does citation tracking add to PubMed?. A case study in depression and coronary heart disease. BMC Med Res Methodol 2006, 6:4.
48. Cepeda MS, Lobanov V, Berlin JA. Using Sherlock and ClinicalTrials.gov data to understand nocebo effects and adverse event dropout rates in the placebo arm. J Pain 2013, 14:999.
49. Lowe HJ, Barnett GO. Understanding and using the medical subject headings (MeSH) vocabulary to perform literature searches. JAMA 1994, 271:1103-1108.
50. Robinson KA, Dickersin K. Development of a highly sensitive search strategy for the retrieval of reports of controlled trials using PubMed. Int J Epidemiol 2002, 31:150-153.
51. Doshi P, Jones M, Jefferson T. Rethinking credible evidence synthesis. BMJ 2012, 344:d7898.
52. Eysenbach G, Tuische J, Diepgen TL. Evaluation of the usefulness of Internet searches to identify unpublished clinical trials for systematic reviews. Med Inform Internet Med 2001, 26:203-218.
53. McKibbon KA. Systematic reviews and librarians. Libr Trends 2006, 55:202-215.
54. Harris MR. The librarian's roles in the systematic review process: a case study. J Med Libr Assoc 2005, 93:81-87.
55. Beller EM, Chen JK, Wang UL, Glasziou PP. Are systematic reviews up-to-date at the time of publication?. Syst Rev 2013, 2:36.
56. Hull D, Pettifer SR, Kell DB. Defrosting the digital library: bibliographic tools for the next generation web. PLoS Comput Biol 2008, 4:e1000204.
57. Chalmers I, Glasziou P, Godlee F. All trials must be registered and the results published. BMJ 2013, 346:105.
58. Huser V, Cimino JJ. Evaluating adherence to the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors' policy of mandatory, timely clinical trial registration. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2013, 20:e169-e174.
59. World Health Organization International clinical trials registry platform (ICTRP) 2008, Welcome to the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform Obtenido de: http://www.who.int/ictrp/en/ (Consulta: 31 may 2006), World Health Organization.
60. Wilkins T, Gillies RA, Davies K. EMBASE versus MEDLINE for family medicine searches: can MEDLINE searches find the forest or a tree?. Can Fam Physician 2005, 51:848-849.
61. Wolf F, Grum C, Bara A, Milan S, Jones P. Comparison of Medline and Embase retrieval of RCTs of the effects of educational interventions on asthma-related outcomes. Cochrane Colloquium Abstracts Journal 1995, Oslo, Norway: Wiley Blackwell.
62. Woods D, Trewheellar K. Medline and Embase complement each other in literature searches. BMJ 1998, 316:1166.
63. Shariff SZ, Bejaimal SA, Sontrop JM, Iansavichus AV, Haynes RB, Weir MA, Garg AX. Retrieving clinical evidence: a comparison of PubMed and Google Scholar for Quick Clinical Searches. J Med Internet Res 2013, 15:e164.
64. Carpineto C, Romano G. A survey of automatic query expansion in information retrieval. ACM Comput Survey 2012, 44:1.
65. Chatterjee R. An analytical assessment on document clustering. Int J Comp Net Inform Sec 2012, 4:63.
66. Boyack KW, Newman D, Duhon RJ, Klavans R, Patek M, Biberstine JR, Schijvenaars B, Skupin A, Ma N, Börner K. Clustering more than two million biomedical publications: Comparing the accuracies of nine text-based similarity approaches. PLoS One 2011, 6:e18029.
67. Aljaber B, Stokes N, Bailey J, Pei J. Document clustering of scientific texts using citation contexts. Inform Retrieval 2010, 13:101-131.
68. Smalheiser NR, Lin C, Jia L, Jiang Y, Cohen AM, Yu C, Davis JM, Adams CE, McDonagh MS, Meng W. Design and implementation of Metta, a metasearch engine for biomedical literature retrieval intended for systematic reviewers. Health Inform Sci Syst 2014, 2:1.
69. Bracke PJ, Howse DK, Keim SM. Evidence-based Medicine Search: a customizable federated search engine. J Med Libr Assoc 2008, 96:108.
70. Coiera E, Walther M, Nguyen K, Lovell NH. Architecture for knowledge-based and federated search of online clinical evidence. J Med Internet Res 2005, 7:e52.
71. Magrabi F, Westbrook JI, Kidd MR, Day RO, Coiera E. Long-term patterns of online evidence retrieval use in general practice: a 12-month study. J Med Internet Res 2008, 10:e6.
72. Meats E, Brassey J, Heneghan C, Glasziou P. Using the Turning Research Into Practice (TRIP) database: how do clinicians really search?. J Med Libr Assoc 2007, 95:156-163.
73. Whetzel PL, Noy NF, Shah NH, Alexander PR, Nyulas C, Tudorache T, Musen MA. BioPortal: enhanced functionality via new Web services from the National Center for Biomedical Ontology to access and use ontologies in software applications. Nucleic Acids Res 2011, 39:W541-W545.
74. De Angelis C, Drazen JM, Frizelle FA, Haug C, Hoey J, Horton R, Kotzin S, Laine C, Marusic A, Overbeke AJP. Clinical trial registration: a statement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. N Engl J Med 2004, 351:1250-1251.
75. Health UNIo ClinicalTrials. gov 2009, http://www.clinicaltrials.gov, Health UNIo.
76. European Union Clinical Trials Register https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/, European Union Clinical Trials Register.
77. Askie LM. Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: history and growth. J Evid-Based Med 2011, 4:185-187.
78. Qi X-S, Bai M, Yang Z-P, Ren W-R, McFarland LV, Goh S, Linz K, Miller BJ, Zhang H, Gao C. Duplicates in systematic reviews: A critical, but often neglected issue. World J of Meta-Anal 2013, 3:97-101.
79. Qi X, Yang M, Ren W, Jia J, Wang J, Han G, Fan D. Find duplicates among the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases in systematic review. PLoS One 2013, 8:e71838.
80. Elmagarmid AK, Ipeirotis PG, Verykios VS. Duplicate record detection: a survey. IEEE Trans Knowl Data Eng 2007, 19:1-16.
81. Aabenhus R, Jensen JU, Cals JW. Incorrect inclusion of individual studies and methodological flaws in systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Gen Pract 2014, 64:221-222.
82. REUTERS T EndNote® 2011, Bibliographies Made Easy™, http://www.endnote.com, REUTERS T.
83. ResearchSoft I. ProCite Version 5 1999, Berkeley, CA: Institute for Scientific Information.
84. Jiang Y, Lin C, Meng W, Yu C, Cohen AM, Smalheiser NR. Rule-based deduplication of article records from bibliographic databases. Database 2014, bat086.
85. Councill IG, Giles CL, Kan M-Y. ParsCit: an open-source CRF reference string parsing package. Language Resources and Evaluation Conference 2008, 28-30. Morocco: Marrakech.
86. Granitzer M, Hristakeva M, Jack K, Knight R. A comparison of metadata extraction techniques for crowdsourced bibliographic metadata management. Proceedings of the 27th Annual ACM Symposium on Applied Computing 2012, 962-964. Riva (Trento), Italy. New York: ACM.
87. Nhat HDH, Bysani P. Linking citations to their bibliographic references. Proceedings of the ACL-2012 Special Workshop on Rediscovering 50 Years of Discoveries 2012, 110-113. Stroudsburg: PA Association for Computational Linguistics.
88. Saleem O, Latif S. Information extraction from research papers by data integration and data validation from multiple header extraction sources. Proceedings of the World Congress on Engineering and Computer Science 2012, San Francisco, USA.
89. Day M-Y, Tsai T-H, Sung C-L, Lee C-W, Wu S-H, Ong C-S, Hsu W-L. A knowledge-based approach to citation extraction. IEEE International Conference on Information Reuse and Integration Conference 2005, 50-55. Las Vegas, Nevada, USA.
90. Errami M, Hicks JM, Fisher W, Trusty D, Wren JD, Long TC, Garner HR. Déjà vu-a study of duplicate citations in Medline. Bioinformatics 2008, 24:243-249.
91. Zhang HY. CrossCheck: an effective tool for detecting plagiarism. Learned Publishing 2010, 23:9-14.
92. Meuschke N, Gipp B, Breitinger C, Berkeley U. CitePlag: a citation-based plagiarism detection system prototype. Proceedings of the 5th International Plagiarism Conference 2012, Newcastle, UK.
93. Chung GY, Coiera E. A study of structured clinical abstracts and the semantic classification of sentences. Proceedings of the Workshop on BioNLP 2007: Biological, Translational, and Clinical Language Processing 2007, 121-128. Stroudsburg, PA, USA: Association for Computational Linguistics.
94. Thomas J, McNaught J, Ananiadou S. Applications of text mining within systematic reviews. Res Synth Meth 2011, 2:1-14.
95. Kiritchenko S, de Bruijn B, Carini S, Martin J, Sim I. ExaCT: automatic extraction of clinical trial characteristics from journal publications. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2010, 10:56.
96. Kim SN, Martinez D, Cavedon L, Yencken L. Automatic classification of sentences to support Evidence Based Medicine. BMC Bioinform 2011, 12(Suppl 2):S5.
97. Zhao J, Bysani P, Kan MY. Exploiting classification correlations for the extraction of evidence-based practice information. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2012, 2012:1070-1078.
98. Hansen MJ, Rasmussen N, Chung G. A method of extracting the number of trial participants from abstracts describing randomized controlled trials. J Telemed Telecare 2008, 14:354-358.
99. Thomas J, Brunton J, Graziosi S. EPPI-Reviewer 4.0: software for research synthesis. 2010, EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London UK.
100. DistillerSR http://www.systematic-review.net, DistillerSR.
101. Covidence http://www.covidence.org, Covidence.
102. García Adeva JJ, Pikatza Atxa JM, Ubeda Carrillo M, Ansuategi Zengotitabengoa E. Automatic text classification to support systematic reviews in medicine. Expert Syst Appl 2013, in press.
103. Wallace BC, Trikalinos TA, Lau J, Brodley C, Schmid CH. Semi-automated screening of biomedical citations for systematic reviews. BMC Bioinform 2010, 11:55.
104. Wallace BC, Small K, Brodley CE, Lau J, Trikalinos TA. Deploying an interactive machine learning system in an evidence-based practice center: abstrackr. Proceedings of the 2nd ACM SIGHIT International Health Informatics Symposium 2012, 819-824. Miamy, Florida, USA. New York: ACM.
105. Ananiadou S, Rea B, Okazaki N, Procter R, Thomas J. Supporting systematic reviews using text mining. Soc Sci Comp Rev 2009, 27:509-523.
106. Cohen AM, Ambert K, McDonagh M. Studying the potential impact of automated document classification on scheduling a systematic review update. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2012, 12:33.
107. Sarker A, Mollá-Aliod D. A rule based approach for automatic identification of publication types of medical papers. Proceedings of the ADCS Annual Symposium 2010, 84-88.
108. Kim MH, Compton P. Improving open information extraction for informal web documents with ripple-down rules. Knowledge Management and Acquisition for Intelligent Systems 2012, 160-174. Heidelberg: Springer.
109. OvidSP http://gateway.ovid.com, OvidSP.
110. PubMed Central http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc, PubMed Central.
111. Google Scholar http://scholar.google.com, Google Scholar.
112. Microsoft Academic Search http://academic.research.microsoft.com, Microsoft Academic Search.
113. Rodriguez-Esteban R, Iossifov I. Figure mining for biomedical research. Bioinformatics 2009, 25:2082-2084.
114. Ceri S, Bozzon A, Brambilla M, Della Valle E, Fraternali P, Quarteroni S. The Information Retrieval Process. Web Information Retrieval 2013, 13-26. Heidelberg: Springer.
115. Horsley T, Dingwall O, Sampson M. Checking reference lists to find additional studies for systematic reviews. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011, 8:1-27.
116. Robinson KA, Dunn A, Tsafnat G, Glasziou P. Citation networks of trials: feasibility of iterative bidirectional citation searching. J Clin Epidemiol 2014, 67:793-799.
117. Summerscales R, Argamon S, Hupert J, Schwartz A. Identifying treatments, groups, and outcomes in medical abstracts. The Sixth Midwest Computational Linguistics Colloquium (MCLC 2009) 2009, Bloomington, IN, USA: Indiana University.
118. Summerscales RL, Argamon S, Bai S, Huperff J, Schwartzff A. Automatic summarization of results from clinical trials. the 2011 IEEE International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedicine (BIBM) 2011, 372-377. Atlanta, GA, USA.
119. Hsu W, Speier W, Taira RK. Automated extraction of reported statistical analyses: towards a logical representation of clinical trial literature. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2012, 2012:350-359.
120. Huwaldt JA. Plot Digitizer 2009, http://plotdigitizer.sf.net.
121. Egner J, Mitchell M, Richter T, Winchen T. Engauge Digitizer: convert graphs or map files into numbers 2013, http://digitizer.sf.net/.
122. Rohatgi A. WebPlotDigitizer 2013, http://arohatgi.info/WebPlotDigitizer/.
123. Imai E, Chan JC, Ito S, Yamasaki T, Kobayashi F, Haneda M, Makino H. Effects of olmesartan on renal and cardiovascular outcomes in type 2 diabetes with overt nephropathy: a multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled study. Diabetologia 2011, 54:2978-2986.
124. Qahtani NH, Hajeri FA. The effect of hyoscine butylbromide in shortening the first stage of labor: a double blind, randomized, controlled, clinical trial. Ther Clin Risk Manag 2011, 7:495-500.
125. Chung GY, Coiera E. Are decision trees a feasible knowledge representation to guide extraction of critical information from randomized controlled trial reports?. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2008, 8:48.
126. Cochrane Register of Studies http://www.metaxis.com/CRSSoftwarePortal/Index.asp, Cochrane Register of Studies.
127. Richard J. Summing Up: the Science of Reviewing Research 1984, Cambridge, MA, USA: Harvard University Press.
128. Hedges LV, Olkin I, Statistiker M. Statistical Methods for Meta-analysis 1985, New York: Academic Press.
129. Lewis S, Clarke M. Forest plots: trying to see the wood and the trees. BMJ 2001, 322:1479.
130. Egger M, Smith GD, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 1997, 315:629-634.
131. Wallace BC, Schmid CH, Lau J, Trikalinos TA. Meta-Analyst: software for meta-analysis of binary, continuous and diagnostic data. BMC Med Res Methodol 2009, 9:80.
132. Zamora J, Abraira V, Muriel A, Khan K, Coomarasamy A. Meta-DiSc: a software for meta-analysis of test accuracy data. BMC Med Res Methodol 2006, 6:31.
133. Rosenberg MS, Adams DC, Gurevitch J. MetaWin: statistical software for meta-analysis 2000, Massachusetts, USA: Sinauer Associates Sunderland.
134. Bax L, Yu L-M, Ikeda N, Moons KG. A systematic comparison of software dedicated to meta-analysis of causal studies. BMC Med Res Methodol 2007, 7:40.
135. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med 2009, 151:264-269.
136. RevMan-HAL http://szg.cochrane.org/revman-hal, RevMan-HAL.
137. PRISMA flow diagram generator http://old_theta.phm.utoronto.ca/tools/prisma, PRISMA flow diagram generator.
138. Reiter E. Natural Language Generation. The Handbook of Computational Linguistics and Natural Language Processing 2010, Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell, Clark A, Fox C, Lappin S.
139. Elliott JH, Turner T, Clavisi O, Thomas J, Higgins JP, Mavergames C, Gruen RL. Living systematic reviews: an emerging opportunity to narrow the evidence-practice gap. PLoS Med 2014, 11:e1001603.
140. Kawamoto K, Honey A, Rubin K. The HL7-OMG healthcare services specification project: motivation, methodology, and deliverables for enabling a semantically interoperable service-oriented architecture for healthcare. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2009, 16:874-881.