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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Cleo, Gina, Scott, Anna Mae, Islam, Farhana, Julien, Blair, Beller, Elaine
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