Loading…
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...
Saved in:
Published in: | ALTEX, alternatives to animal experimentation alternatives to animal experimentation, 2019-01, Vol.36 (3), p.508 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , , |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Subjects: | |
Citations: | Items that cite this one |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
cited_by | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c362t-6b40d112241c2c10b7590b0947936aebeabb59f8bcd51ccfd92c71a9cae440df3 |
---|---|
cites | |
container_end_page | |
container_issue | 3 |
container_start_page | 508 |
container_title | ALTEX, alternatives to animal experimentation |
container_volume | 36 |
creator | Van der Mierden, Stevie Tsaioun, Katya Bleich, André Leenaars, Cathalijn H C |
description | 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. |
doi_str_mv | 10.14573/ALTEX.1902131 |
format | article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_gale_infotracmisc_A598621156</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A598621156</galeid><sourcerecordid>A598621156</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c362t-6b40d112241c2c10b7590b0947936aebeabb59f8bcd51ccfd92c71a9cae440df3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNptkE1LAzEQhoMottRePcqC5607-5HdHEupH1DwYIXeliQ7qZHdTUlSa_-90Vbx0MlhwsP7zOEl5BqSCeRFmd1NF8v5agIsSSGDMzKEilZxwejq_N9_QMbOvSdhaMiV6SUZZACQBTAkyxej_I5bjLwxrYuUsVGrPVrutwE6aRF73a8j3Udu7zx23GsZWfzQuHPfVGjTYaMlbwN1yK18uyIXircOx8c9Iq_38-XsMV48PzzNpotYZjT1MRV50gCkaQ4ylZCIsmCJSFhesoxyFMiFKJiqhGwKkFI1LJUlcCY55sFU2YjcHu6ueYu17pXxlstOO1lPC1bRFKCgITU5kQqvwU5L06PSgZ8SpDXOWVT1xuqO230NSf1TfM1bj5_1sfgg3ByEzVaELv7ivzVnX7q-fxo</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>Software tools for literature screening in systematic reviews in biomedical research</title><source>Springer Nature - SpringerLink Journals - Fully Open Access</source><creator>Van der Mierden, Stevie ; Tsaioun, Katya ; Bleich, André ; Leenaars, Cathalijn H C</creator><creatorcontrib>Van der Mierden, Stevie ; Tsaioun, Katya ; Bleich, André ; Leenaars, Cathalijn H C</creatorcontrib><description>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.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1868-596X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1868-596X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.14573/ALTEX.1902131</identifier><identifier>PMID: 31113000</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Germany: Springer Spektrum</publisher><subject>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</subject><ispartof>ALTEX, alternatives to animal experimentation, 2019-01, Vol.36 (3), p.508</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2019 Springer Spektrum</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c362t-6b40d112241c2c10b7590b0947936aebeabb59f8bcd51ccfd92c71a9cae440df3</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31113000$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Van der Mierden, Stevie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tsaioun, Katya</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bleich, André</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Leenaars, Cathalijn H C</creatorcontrib><title>Software tools for literature screening in systematic reviews in biomedical research</title><title>ALTEX, alternatives to animal experimentation</title><addtitle>ALTEX</addtitle><description>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.</description><subject>Animal Testing Alternatives</subject><subject>Animals</subject><subject>Biomedical Research</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>International economic relations</subject><subject>Medical research</subject><subject>Software</subject><subject>Software - standards</subject><subject>Software industry</subject><subject>Spreadsheet software</subject><subject>Systematic Reviews as Topic</subject><subject>Word processing software</subject><issn>1868-596X</issn><issn>1868-596X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2019</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNptkE1LAzEQhoMottRePcqC5607-5HdHEupH1DwYIXeliQ7qZHdTUlSa_-90Vbx0MlhwsP7zOEl5BqSCeRFmd1NF8v5agIsSSGDMzKEilZxwejq_N9_QMbOvSdhaMiV6SUZZACQBTAkyxej_I5bjLwxrYuUsVGrPVrutwE6aRF73a8j3Udu7zx23GsZWfzQuHPfVGjTYaMlbwN1yK18uyIXircOx8c9Iq_38-XsMV48PzzNpotYZjT1MRV50gCkaQ4ylZCIsmCJSFhesoxyFMiFKJiqhGwKkFI1LJUlcCY55sFU2YjcHu6ueYu17pXxlstOO1lPC1bRFKCgITU5kQqvwU5L06PSgZ8SpDXOWVT1xuqO230NSf1TfM1bj5_1sfgg3ByEzVaELv7ivzVnX7q-fxo</recordid><startdate>20190101</startdate><enddate>20190101</enddate><creator>Van der Mierden, Stevie</creator><creator>Tsaioun, Katya</creator><creator>Bleich, André</creator><creator>Leenaars, Cathalijn H C</creator><general>Springer Spektrum</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20190101</creationdate><title>Software tools for literature screening in systematic reviews in biomedical research</title><author>Van der Mierden, Stevie ; Tsaioun, Katya ; Bleich, André ; Leenaars, Cathalijn H C</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c362t-6b40d112241c2c10b7590b0947936aebeabb59f8bcd51ccfd92c71a9cae440df3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2019</creationdate><topic>Animal Testing Alternatives</topic><topic>Animals</topic><topic>Biomedical Research</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>International economic relations</topic><topic>Medical research</topic><topic>Software</topic><topic>Software - standards</topic><topic>Software industry</topic><topic>Spreadsheet software</topic><topic>Systematic Reviews as Topic</topic><topic>Word processing software</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Van der Mierden, Stevie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tsaioun, Katya</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bleich, André</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Leenaars, Cathalijn H C</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><jtitle>ALTEX, alternatives to animal experimentation</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Van der Mierden, Stevie</au><au>Tsaioun, Katya</au><au>Bleich, André</au><au>Leenaars, Cathalijn H C</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Software tools for literature screening in systematic reviews in biomedical research</atitle><jtitle>ALTEX, alternatives to animal experimentation</jtitle><addtitle>ALTEX</addtitle><date>2019-01-01</date><risdate>2019</risdate><volume>36</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>508</spage><pages>508-</pages><issn>1868-596X</issn><eissn>1868-596X</eissn><abstract>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.</abstract><cop>Germany</cop><pub>Springer Spektrum</pub><pmid>31113000</pmid><doi>10.14573/ALTEX.1902131</doi><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1868-596X |
ispartof | ALTEX, alternatives to animal experimentation, 2019-01, Vol.36 (3), p.508 |
issn | 1868-596X 1868-596X |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_gale_infotracmisc_A598621156 |
source | Springer Nature - SpringerLink Journals - Fully Open Access |
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 |
title | Software tools for literature screening in systematic reviews in biomedical research |
url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-25T13%3A37%3A30IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Software%20tools%20for%20literature%20screening%20in%20systematic%20reviews%20in%20biomedical%20research&rft.jtitle=ALTEX,%20alternatives%20to%20animal%20experimentation&rft.au=Van%20der%20Mierden,%20Stevie&rft.date=2019-01-01&rft.volume=36&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=508&rft.pages=508-&rft.issn=1868-596X&rft.eissn=1868-596X&rft_id=info:doi/10.14573/ALTEX.1902131&rft_dat=%3Cgale_cross%3EA598621156%3C/gale_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c362t-6b40d112241c2c10b7590b0947936aebeabb59f8bcd51ccfd92c71a9cae440df3%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/31113000&rft_galeid=A598621156&rfr_iscdi=true |