ArticleBMC medical research methodology2013
Reference management software for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: an exploration of usage and usability.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
22 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Proactive Maintenance of Pump Systems Operating in the Mining Industry-A Systematic Review.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Pooled it
- A Systematic Review on Intervention Treatment in Pathological Gambling.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2024Pooled it
- Prevalence of Antibiotic Resistance in Older Adults and Alzheimer's Disease Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of Alzheimer's disease reports · 2024Pooled it
- Potential antigenic targets used in immunological tests for diagnosis of tegumentary leishmaniasis: A systematic review.PloS one · 2021Pooled it
- Type 2 Diabetes Prediction Model in China: A Five-Year Systematic Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Basketball's Improvement in Bone Mineral Density Compared to Other Sports or Free Exercise Practice in Children and Adolescents: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- The American Society for Microbiology collaboration with the CDC Laboratory Medicine Best Practices initiative for evidence-based laboratory medicine.Clinical microbiology reviews · 2024Review
- The Perspective of Cancer Patients in Palliative Care on Unmet Needs: A Qualitative Synthesis Using Meta-Ethnography.The American journal of hospice & palliative care · 2024Review
- Electronic Patient Reported Outcomes Measures (e-PROMs) in Pediatric Palliative Oncology Care: A Scoping Review.Journal of palliative care · 2024Article
- Digital Twin Approach for Operation and Maintenance of Transportation System-Systematic Review.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Effectiveness of exercise modalities on breast cancer patient outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Cardio-oncology (London, England) · 2024Review
- Technology to Support Older Adults in Home Palliative Care: A Scoping Review.The American journal of hospice & palliative care · 2024Article
- The Automated Systematic Search Deduplicator (ASySD): a rapid, open-source, interoperable tool to remove duplicate citations in biomedical systematic reviews.BMC biology · 2023Article
- Does enteral immune nutrition (EIN) boost the immunity of gastric cancer (GC) patients undergoing surgery? A systematic review and meta-analysis.Wideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques · 2023Article
- The Social Legitimacy of Pain: Protocol for a Systematic Literature Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Electronic patient-reported outcomes (e-PROMs) in palliative cancer care: a scoping review.Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2022Article
- Vitamin A and its dervatives effect on bone mineral density, a systematic review.Journal of family medicine and primary care · 2021Article
- Research Screener: a machine learning tool to semi-automate abstract screening for systematic reviews.Systematic reviews · 2021Article
- Outcomes of disease prevention and management interventions in food pantries and food banks: a scoping review.BMJ open · 2019Article
- Meta-Analytic Methodology for Basic Research: A Practical Guide.Frontiers in physiology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundReference management software programs enable researchers to more easily organize and manage large volumes of references typically identified during the production of systematic reviews. The purpose of this study was to determine the extent to which authors are using reference management software to produce systematic reviews; identify which programs are used most frequently and rate their ease of use; and assess the degree to which software usage is documented in published studies.
methodsWe reviewed the full text of systematic reviews published in core clinical journals indexed in ACP Journal Club from 2008 to November 2011 to determine the extent to which reference management software usage is reported in published reviews. We surveyed corresponding authors to verify and supplement information in published reports, and gather frequency and ease-of-use data on individual reference management programs.
resultsOf the 78 researchers who responded to our survey, 79.5% reported that they had used a reference management software package to prepare their review. Of these, 4.8% reported this usage in their published studies. EndNote, Reference Manager, and RefWorks were the programs of choice for more than 98% of authors who used this software. Comments with respect to ease-of-use issues focused on the integration of this software with other programs and computer interfaces, and the sharing of reference databases among researchers.
conclusionsDespite underreporting of use, reference management software is frequently adopted by authors of systematic reviews. The transparency, reproducibility and quality of systematic reviews may be enhanced through increased reporting of reference management software usage.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.