Software tools for literature screening in systematic reviews in biomedical research

Systematic Reviews (SRs) hold promise for implementing the 3Rs in animal sciences: they can retrieve available alternative models, help refining experiments, and identify insufficiencies, or an excess of, scientific knowledge on a particular topic. Unfortunately, SRs can be labour- and time-intensiv...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:ALTEX, alternatives to animal experimentation alternatives to animal experimentation, 2019-01, Vol.36 (3), p.508
Main Authors: Van der Mierden, Stevie, Tsaioun, Katya, Bleich, André, Leenaars, Cathalijn H C
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Animal Testing Alternatives
Animals
Biomedical Research
Humans
International economic relations
Medical research
Software
Software - standards
Software industry
Spreadsheet software
Systematic Reviews as Topic
Word processing software
Citations: Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Systematic Reviews (SRs) hold promise for implementing the 3Rs in animal sciences: they can retrieve available alternative models, help refining experiments, and identify insufficiencies, or an excess of, scientific knowledge on a particular topic. Unfortunately, SRs can be labour- and time-intensive, especially the reference screening and data extraction phases. Fortunately, there are several software tools available that help make screening faster and easier. However, it is not always clear which features the tools offer. Therefore, a feature analysis was performed to compare different reference screening tools as objectively as possible. This analysis enables researchers to select the most appropriate tool for their needs. Fifteen different tools were compared: CADIMA, Covidence, DistillerSR, Endnote, Endnote using Bramer's method, EROS, HAWC, Microsoft Excel, Excel using VonVille's method, Microsoft Word, Rayyan, RevMan, SyRF, SysRev.com, and SWIFT Active Screener. Their support of 21 features was tested. Features were categorised as mandatory, desirable, and optional. DistillerSR, Covidence, and SWIFT Active Screener are the tools that support all mandatory features. These tools are preferred for screening references, but none of them are free. The best scoring free tool is Rayyan, which lacks one mandatory function: distinct title/abstract and full-text phases. The lowest scoring tools are those not specifically designed for SRs, like Microsoft Word and Endnote. Their use can only be advised for small and simple SRs. A well-informed selection of SR screening tools will benefit review quality and speed, which can contribute to the advancement of the 3Rs in animal studies.
ISSN:1868-596X
1868-596X
DOI:10.14573/ALTEX.1902131