Cargando…
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 (Covide...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6587262/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31221212 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-019-1069-6 |
_version_ | 1783429031902838784 |
---|---|
author | Cleo, Gina Scott, Anna Mae Islam, Farhana Julien, Blair Beller, Elaine |
author_facet | Cleo, Gina Scott, Anna Mae Islam, Farhana Julien, Blair Beller, Elaine |
author_sort | Cleo, Gina |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s13643-019-1069-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6587262 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-65872622019-06-27 Usability and acceptability of four systematic review automation software packages: a mixed method design Cleo, Gina Scott, Anna Mae Islam, Farhana Julien, Blair Beller, Elaine Syst Rev Research 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. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s13643-019-1069-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2019-06-20 /pmc/articles/PMC6587262/ /pubmed/31221212 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-019-1069-6 Text en © The Author(s). 2019 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Research Cleo, Gina Scott, Anna Mae Islam, Farhana Julien, Blair Beller, Elaine Usability and acceptability of four systematic review automation software packages: a mixed method design |
title | Usability and acceptability of four systematic review automation software packages: a mixed method design |
title_full | Usability and acceptability of four systematic review automation software packages: a mixed method design |
title_fullStr | Usability and acceptability of four systematic review automation software packages: a mixed method design |
title_full_unstemmed | Usability and acceptability of four systematic review automation software packages: a mixed method design |
title_short | Usability and acceptability of four systematic review automation software packages: a mixed method design |
title_sort | usability and acceptability of four systematic review automation software packages: a mixed method design |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6587262/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31221212 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-019-1069-6 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT cleogina usabilityandacceptabilityoffoursystematicreviewautomationsoftwarepackagesamixedmethoddesign AT scottannamae usabilityandacceptabilityoffoursystematicreviewautomationsoftwarepackagesamixedmethoddesign AT islamfarhana usabilityandacceptabilityoffoursystematicreviewautomationsoftwarepackagesamixedmethoddesign AT julienblair usabilityandacceptabilityoffoursystematicreviewautomationsoftwarepackagesamixedmethoddesign AT bellerelaine usabilityandacceptabilityoffoursystematicreviewautomationsoftwarepackagesamixedmethoddesign |