Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Syst Rev. 2019 Jun 20;8(1):145. doi: 10.1186/s13643-019-1069-6.

Usability and acceptability of four systematic review automation software packages: a mixed method design.

Author information

1
Institute for Evidence-Based Healthcare, Bond University, Gold Coast, Australia. gcleo@bond.edu.au.
2
Institute for Evidence-Based Healthcare, Bond University, Gold Coast, Australia.
3
Faculty of Health Sciences and Medicine, Bond University, Gold Coast, Australia.

Abstract

AIM:

New software packages help to improve the efficiency of conducting a systematic review through automation of key steps in the systematic review. The aim of this study was to gather qualitative data on the usability and acceptability of four systematic review automation software packages (Covidence, SRA-Helper for EndNote, Rayyan and RobotAnalyst) for the citation screening step of a systematic review.

METHODS:

We recruited three volunteer systematic reviewers and asked them to use allocated software packages during citation screening. They then completed a 12-item online questionnaire which was tailored to capture data for the software packages used.

FINDINGS:

All four software packages were reported to be easy or very easy to learn and use. SRA-Helper for EndNote was most favoured by participants for screening citations and Covidence for resolving conflicts. Overall, participants reported that SRA-Helper for EndNote would be their software package of choice, primarily due to its efficiency.

CONCLUSION:

This study identified a number of considerations which systematic reviewers can use as a basis of their decision which software to use when performing the citation screening and dispute resolution steps of a systematic review.

KEYWORDS:

Acceptability; Automation; Qualitative report; Software packages; Systematic Review Accelerator; Usability

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for BioMed Central Icon for PubMed Central
Loading ...
Support Center