ReviewJournal of evaluation in clinical practice2025
Digital Tools to Support the Systematic Review Process: An Introduction.
Review in Journal of evaluation in clinical practice, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluating the Performance of Covidence's Artificial Intelligence-Based Screening Function in Cancer Systematic Reviews.Cancer innovation · 2026Article
- Performance and Consistency of Large Language Models in Key Labor-Intensive Tasks of Systematic Reviews.Journal of evaluation in clinical practice · 2026Article
- Oral Structural and Functional Impairment in Relation to Depressive Outcomes in Older Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies.Diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- From reviews to real-time: dynamic evidence in dentistry.Evidence-based dentistry · 2026Article
- Concerns of AI use in evidence synthesis based practices: collective views from the community.BMC medical research methodology · 2026Article
- Screenathon 2.0: human-AI collaborative screening applied to patient-generated health data.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- PROTOCOL: Evidence and Gap Map of Climate Change Adaptation Interventions for Enhancing Food Security and Livelihood in Sub-Saharan Africa.Campbell systematic reviews · 2026Article
- Don't Stop Me Now, `Cause I'm Having a Good Time Screening: Evaluation of Stopping Methods for Safe Use of Priority Screening in Systematic Reviews.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2026Article
- Evaluating AI Performance in Systematic Literature Reviews for HEOR: A Case Study.Journal of health economics and outcomes research · 2026Article
- Using large language models to directly screen electronic databases as an alternative to traditional search strategies such as the Cochrane highly sensitive search for filtering randomized controlled trials in systematic reviews.Research synthesis methods · 2025Article
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
Abstract
backgroundThe introduction of systematic reviews in medicine has prompted a paradigm shift in employing evidence for decision-making across various fields. Its methodology involves structured comparisons, critical appraisals, and pooled data analysis to inform decision-making. The process itself is resource-intensive and time-consuming which can impede the timely incorporation of the latest evidence into clinical practice.
aimThis article introduces digital tools designed to enhance systematic review processes, emphasizing their functionality, availability, and independent validation in peer-reviewed literature.
methodsWe discuss digital evidence synthesis tools for systematic reviews, identifying tools for all review processes, tools for search strategy development, reference management, study selection, data extraction, and critical appraisal. Emphasis is on validated, functional tools with independently published method evaluations.
resultsTools like EPPI-Reviewer, Covidence, DistillerSR, and JBI-SUMARI provide comprehensive support for systematic reviews. Additional tools cater to evidence search (e.g., PubMed PICO, Trialstreamer), reference management (e.g., Mendeley), prioritization in study selection (e.g., Abstrackr, EPPI-Reviewer, SWIFT-ActiveScreener), and risk bias assessment (e.g., RobotReviewer). Machine learning and AI integration facilitate workflow efficiency but require end-user informed evaluation for their adoption.
conclusionThe development of digital tools, particularly those incorporating AI, represents a significant advancement in systematic review methodology. These tools not only support the systematic review process but also have the potential to improve the timeliness and quality of evidence available for decision-making. The findings are relevant to clinicians, researchers, and those involved in the production or support of systematic reviews, with broader applicability to other research methods.
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.