ArticleSystematic reviews2022
The Systematic Review Toolbox: keeping up to date with tools to support evidence synthesis.
Article in Systematic reviews, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
23 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A guide to using technological applications to facilitate systematic reviews.Worldviews on evidence-based nursing · 2022Pooled it
- An Open-Source Systematic Reviews Integrated System (OSSYRIS) - Streamlining Processes and Standardising Data Structures.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence (AI) Readiness to Support Evidence Synthesis by Workflow: Findings From a Review of Reviews.Campbell systematic reviews · 2026Article
- Topic-specific living databases of clinical trials: A scoping review of public databases.Clinical trials (London, England) · 2026Article
- Sensitivity and Precision of Search Strategies Built Using a Text-Mining Word Frequency Tool (PubReMiner) Compared to Current Best Practice for Building Search Strategies: A Study Within a Review (SWAR).Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2026Article
- Study protocol for evaluating automation of systematic review processes with EPPI-Reviewer and Copilot 365 in updating the cataract evidence gap map.Systematic reviews · 2026Article
- Advocating for trust in and trustworthy AI to transform evidence synthesis.Environmental evidence · 2025Article
- A database to initiate methodological advances in the evaluation of transitivity assumption in network meta-analysis: qualitative features and limitations of the tracenma R package.BMC medical research methodology · 2025Article
- Artificial Intelligence as a New Research Ally? Performing AI-Assisted Systematic Literature Reviews in Health Economics.PharmacoEconomics · 2025Article
- The Perspective on Secondary Research Practices: A Cross-Sectional Analysis.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Digital Tools to Support the Systematic Review Process: An Introduction.Journal of evaluation in clinical practice · 2025Review
- Systematic reviews of the literature: an introduction to current methods.American journal of epidemiology · 2025Article
- Publicly available continuously updated topic specific databases of randomised clinical trials: A scoping review.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2024Article
- Article
- The searchbuildR shiny app: A new implementation of the objective approach for search strategy development in systematic reviews.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2024Article
- Usability of the "Systematic Review Support" computer system: a methodological study.Revista latino-americana de enfermagem · 2024Article
- An Automated Literature Review Tool (LiteRev) for Streamlining and Accelerating Research Using Natural Language Processing and Machine Learning: Descriptive Performance Evaluation Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Article
- Machine learning for accelerating screening in evidence reviews.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2023Article
- The Systematic Review Toolbox: keeping up to date with tools to support evidence synthesis.Systematic reviews · 2022Article
- [Evidence syntheses in public health: An overview].Zeitschrift fur Evidenz, Fortbildung und Qualitat im Gesundheitswesen · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Systematic Review (SR) Toolbox was developed in 2014 to collate tools that can be used to support the systematic review process. Since its inception, the breadth of evidence synthesis methodologies has expanded greatly. This work describes the process of updating the SR Toolbox in 2022 to reflect these changes in evidence synthesis methodology. We also briefly analysed included tools and guidance to identify any potential gaps in what is currently available to researchers.
methodsWe manually extracted all guidance and software tools contained within the SR Toolbox in February 2022. A single reviewer, with a second checking a proportion, extracted and analysed information from records contained within the SR Toolbox using Microsoft Excel. Using this spreadsheet and Microsoft Access, the SR Toolbox was updated to reflect expansion of evidence synthesis methodologies and brief analysis conducted.
resultsThe updated version of the SR Toolbox was launched on 13 May 2022, with 235 software tools and 112 guidance documents included. Regarding review families, most software tools (N = 223) and guidance documents (N = 78) were applicable to systematic reviews. However, there were fewer tools and guidance documents applicable to reviews of reviews (N = 66 and N = 22, respectively), while qualitative reviews were less served by guidance documents (N = 19). In terms of review production stages, most guidance documents surrounded quality assessment (N = 70), while software tools related to searching and synthesis (N = 84 and N = 82, respectively). There appears to be a paucity of tools and guidance relating to stakeholder engagement (N = 2 and N = 3, respectively).
conclusionsThe SR Toolbox provides a platform for those undertaking evidence syntheses to locate guidance and software tools to support different aspects of the review process across multiple review types. However, this work has also identified potential gaps in guidance and software that could inform future research.
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.