ArticleFrontiers in research metrics and analytics2024
Evaluating the adoption of handsearching, citation chasing, and screening tools in education research: a survey study.
Article in Frontiers in research metrics and analytics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Introduction: The rapid development of software tools to assist systematic reviewers has led to varying degrees of adoption and selection among researchers. However, the actual usage patterns of these tools, their preferred features, and the criteria for selecting the most suitable tools remain unclear. Methods: To understand these aspects, we collected 175 responses from researchers across different continents. Results: In terms of handsearching, despite new tools developed, our findings reveal that manual handsearching remains prevalent among more than half of the participants. Databases are the most popular tools for citation searching, followed by citation management tools and spreadsheets. This reliance on citation management tools and spreadsheets is concerning as they are not specifically designed for systematic reviews. The primary factors influencing tool selection are the research environment and ease of use. Barriers stopping researchers from adopting alternative tools include limited awareness, challenges in learning new tools, and the financial costs associated with acquiring licenses. Moreover, researchers located in Europe show greater familiarity with a wider range of tools compared to their North American counterparts. Discussion: This preregistered study contributes valuable insights into the tool usage patterns of education researchers, emphasizing the importance of promoting awareness and facilitating the broader adoption of existing tools.
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.