Software tools to support title and abstract screening for systematic reviews in healthcare: An evaluation

BMC Medical Research Methodology

Volumn 20, Issue 1, 2020, Pages

  Harrison, Hannah ^a   Griffin, Simon J ^a,b   Kuhn, Isla ^c   Usher Smith, Juliet A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

^b INSTITUTE OF METABOLIC SCIENCE   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Feature analysis; Screening; Software tools; Systematic reviews; Title and abstract

Indexed keywords

DOCUMENTATION; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; HEALTH CARE DELIVERY; HUMAN; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PROCEDURES; QUESTIONNAIRE; SOFTWARE;

ABSTRACTING AND INDEXING; BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; DELIVERY OF HEALTH CARE; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; HUMANS; SOFTWARE; SURVEYS AND QUESTIONNAIRES; SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS AS TOPIC;

EID: 85077786128     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14712288     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/s12874-020-0897-3     Document Type: Article

References (14)

1. Cook DJ, Mulrow CD, Haynes RB. Systematic reviews: Synthesis of best evidence for clinical decisions. Ann Intern Med. 1997;126(5):376-80.
2. Gopalakrishnan S, Ganeshkumar P. Systematic reviews and meta-analysis: Understanding the best evidence in primary healthcare. J Fam Med Prim Care. 2013;2(1):9-14.
3. Moher D, et al. Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews. PLoS Med. 2007;4(3):e78.
4. Page MJ, Shamseer L, Tricco AC. Registration of systematic reviews in PROSPERO: 30,000 records and counting. Syst Rev. 2018;7(1):32.
5. Julian PTH and Sally GE., Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. 2011. The Cochrane Collaboration.
6. Moher D, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000097.
7. Kohl C, et al. Online tools supporting the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and systematic maps: A case study on CADIMA and review of existing tools. Environ Evid. 2018;7(1):8.
8. Marshall C, Brereton P, Kitchenham B. Tools to support systematic reviews in software engineering: A feature analysis. In: Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering. London: ACM; 2014. p. 1-10.
9. Marshall C, Brereton P. Systematic review toolbox: A catalogue of tools to support systematic reviews. In: Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering. Nanjing: ACM; 2015. p. 1-6.
10. Grimán A, et al. Feature analysis for architectural evaluation methods. J Syst Softw. 2006;79(6):871-88.
11. Hedberg H, Lappalainen J. A preliminary evaluation of software inspection tools, with the DESMET method. In: Fifth International Conference on Quality Software (QSIC'05); 2005.
12. Kitchenham B, Linkman S, Law D. DESMET: A methodology for evaluating software engineering methods and tools, vol. 8; 1997. p. 120-6.
13. Kitchenham BA. Evaluating software engineering methods and tools, part 7: Planning feature analysis evaluation. SIGSOFT Softw Eng Notes. 1997;22(4):21-4.
14. Kitchenham BA, Jones L. Evaluating SW Eng. methods and tools, part 8: Analysing a feature analysis evaluation. SIGSOFT Softw Eng Notes. 1997;22(5):10-2.