ArticleBMC medical research methodology2024
An exploration of available methods and tools to improve the efficiency of systematic review production: a scoping review.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 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
24 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Endometrial microbiota-targeted therapies for chronic endometritis-associated recurrent implantation failure and their impact on IVF outcomes: A systematic review and methodological quality assessment.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2026Pooled it
- A systematic literature review (SLR) on the adoption of artificial intelligence-assisted SLRS: implications for health technology assessments.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2026Pooled it
- Biological research on mental pain, social pain and other pains not primarily felt in the body: methodological systematic review.The British journal of psychiatry : the journal of mental science · 2025Pooled it
- A comparative study of screening performance between abstrackr and GPT models: Systematic review and contextual analysis.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2025Pooled it
- Transforming Systematic Reviews: Evaluating a Fine-Tuned Large Language Model for Abstract Screening in Uveitis and Retinal Vasculitis: Fine-Tuned LLM for Review Screening.Ophthalmology science · 2026Article
- An Open-Source Systematic Reviews Integrated System (OSSYRIS) - Streamlining Processes and Standardising Data Structures.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2026Article
- Performance of Zero-Shot Classifiers for Categorizing RCT Abstracts by Intervention Type: Validation Study.JMIR medical informatics · 2026Article
- Using Generative AI to Appraise the Quality of Medical Education Research Studies: Agreement Between AI-Generated and Human MERSQI Scores.AEM education and training · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence (AI) Readiness to Support Evidence Synthesis by Workflow: Findings From a Review of Reviews.Campbell systematic reviews · 2026Article
- Health policies in long-term care facilities for older adults: A systematic review of textual evidence.MethodsX · 2026Article
- Addressing gender disparities in the efficacy of psychological interventions for behavioral addictions: protocol for a systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Addiction science & clinical practice · 2026Article
- Bridging the Crisis Gap: A Scoping Review of Psychological Distress and Help-Seeking Behaviors in Black Americans Using Crisis Hotlines.Community mental health journal · 2026Article
- Article
- From chaos to clarity: schema-constrained AI for auditable biomedical evidence extraction from full-text PDFs.BMC medical research methodology · 2026Article
- Efficacy of Large Language Models for Screening of Systematic Reviews on Periprosthetic Joint Infection.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Clinical research on homeopathic preparations: protocol template for a series of systematic reviews.Systematic reviews · 2026Article
- Comparing the performance of narrow vs. broad search strategies when using machine learning-based software for title/abstract screening.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2026Article
- Cold Stress Responses and Adaptation Mechanisms inPlants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- AI-Assisted Systematic Review: Humans Still Need to Review All Abstracts for Inclusion.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- Beyond human gold standards: A multimodel framework for automated abstract classification and information extraction.Research synthesis methods · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
22 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSystematic reviews (SRs) are time-consuming and labor-intensive to perform. With the growing number of scientific publications, the SR development process becomes even more laborious. This is problematic because timely SR evidence is essential for decision-making in evidence-based healthcare and policymaking. Numerous methods and tools that accelerate SR development have recently emerged. To date, no scoping review has been conducted to provide a comprehensive summary of methods and ready-to-use tools to improve efficiency in SR production.
objectiveTo present an overview of primary studies that evaluated the use of ready-to-use applications of tools or review methods to improve efficiency in the review process.
methodsWe conducted a scoping review. An information specialist performed a systematic literature search in four databases, supplemented with citation-based and grey literature searching. We included studies reporting the performance of methods and ready-to-use tools for improving efficiency when producing or updating a SR in the health field. We performed dual, independent title and abstract screening, full-text selection, and data extraction. The results were analyzed descriptively and presented narratively.
resultsWe included 103 studies: 51 studies reported on methods, 54 studies on tools, and 2 studies reported on both methods and tools to make SR production more efficient. A total of 72 studies evaluated the validity (n = 69) or usability (n = 3) of one method (n = 33) or tool (n = 39), and 31 studies performed comparative analyses of different methods (n = 15) or tools (n = 16). 20 studies conducted prospective evaluations in real-time workflows. Most studies evaluated methods or tools that aimed at screening titles and abstracts (n = 42) and literature searching (n = 24), while for other steps of the SR process, only a few studies were found. Regarding the outcomes included, most studies reported on validity outcomes (n = 84), while outcomes such as impact on results (n = 23), time-saving (n = 24), usability (n = 13), and cost-saving (n = 3) were less often evaluated.
conclusionFor title and abstract screening and literature searching, various evaluated methods and tools are available that aim at improving the efficiency of SR production. However, only few studies have addressed the influence of these methods and tools in real-world workflows. Few studies exist that evaluate methods or tools supporting the remaining tasks. Additionally, while validity outcomes are frequently reported, there is a lack of evaluation regarding other outcomes.
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.