Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35047698›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open science2021

Development and uptake of an online systematic review platform: the early years of the CAMARADES Systematic Review Facility (SyRF).

Zsanett Bahor, Jing Liao, Gillian Currie, Can Ayder, Malcolm Macleod, Sarah K McCann, Alexandra Bannach-Brown, Kimberley Wever, Nadia Soliman, Qianying Wang and 4 more

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open science, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 46 papers, 22 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
46citing papers in PubMed, 22 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

46 citing papers in PubMed, 22 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Valproate Exposure as anCNS & neurological disorders drug targets · 2025
    Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Guideline
  20. Pooled it
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors.

Zsanett BahorCentre for Clinical Brain Sciences, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4042-5914
Jing LiaoCentre for Clinical Brain Sciences, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK.
Gillian CurrieCentre for Clinical Brain Sciences, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK.
Can AyderCentre for Clinical Brain Sciences, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK.
Malcolm MacleodCentre for Clinical Brain Sciences, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9187-9839
Sarah K McCannCharité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-4737-2349
Alexandra Bannach-BrownCentre for Clinical Brain Sciences, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-3161-1395
Kimberley WeverSystematic Review Centre for Laboratory animal Experimentation (SYRCLE), Department for Health Evidence, Nijmegen Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-3635-3660
Nadia SolimanPain Research, Imperial College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4443-5439
Qianying WangCentre for Clinical Brain Sciences, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK.
Lee Doran-ConstantIndependent Researcher, Manchester, UK.
Laurie YoungFrozen Event Ltd, London, UK.
Emily S SenaCentre for Clinical Brain Sciences, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-3282-8502
Chris SenaCentre for Clinical Brain Sciences, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK.

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/N015665/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Preclinical research is a vital step in the drug discovery pipeline and more generally in helping to better understand human disease aetiology and its management. Systematic reviews (SRs) can be powerful in summarising and appraising this evidence concerning a specific research question, to highlight areas of improvements, areas for further research and areas where evidence may be sufficient to take forward to other research domains, for instance clinical trial. Guidance and tools for preclinical research synthesis remain limited despite their clear utility. We aimed to create an online end-to-end platform primarily for conducting SRs of preclinical studies, that was flexible enough to support a wide variety of experimental designs, was adaptable to different research questions, would allow users to adopt emerging automated tools and support them during their review process using best practice. In this article, we introduce the Systematic Review Facility (https://syrf.org.uk), which was launched in 2016 and designed to support primarily preclinical SRs from small independent projects to large, crowdsourced projects. We discuss the architecture of the app and its features, including the opportunity to collaborate easily, to efficiently manage projects, to screen and annotate studies for important features (metadata), to extract outcome data into a secure database, and tailor these steps to each project. We introduce how we are working to leverage the use of automation tools and allow the integration of these services to accelerate and automate steps in the systematic review workflow.

Indexed as

automationpreclinical researchsystematic review

Identifiers

PMID35047698
PMCPMC8647599

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.