A full systematic review was completed in 2 weeks using automation tools: a case study

被引:362
作者
Clark, Justin [1 ]
Glasziou, Paul [1 ]
Del Mar, Chris [1 ]
Bannach-Brown, Alexandra [1 ]
Stehlik, Paulina [1 ]
Scott, Anna Mae [1 ]
机构
[1] Bond Univ, Inst Evidence Based Healthcare, Gold Coast, Australia
基金
澳大利亚国家健康与医学研究理事会;
关键词
Systematic reviews; Automation; Methods improvement; 2 week systematic review; 2wSR; Systematic review accelerator; Barriers; Facilitators;
D O I
10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.01.008
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
100404 [儿少卫生与妇幼保健学];
摘要
Background and Objectives: Systematic reviews (SRs) are time and resource intensive, requiring approximately 1 year from protocol registration to submission for publication. Our aim was to describe the process, facilitators, and barriers to completing the first 2-week full SR. Study Design and Setting: We systematically reviewed evidence of the impact of increased fluid intake, on urinary tract infection (UTI) recurrence, in individuals at risk for UTIs. The review was conducted by experienced systematic reviewers with complementary skills (two researcher clinicians, an information specialist, and an epidemiologist), using Systematic Review Automation tools, and blocked off time for the duration of the project. The outcomes were time to complete the SR, time to complete individual SR tasks, facilitators and barriers to progress, and peer reviewer feedback on the SR manuscript. Times to completion were analyzed quantitatively (minutes and calendar days); facilitators and barriers were mapped onto the Theoretical Domains Framework; and peer reviewer feedback was analyzed quantitatively and narratively. Results: The SR was completed in 61 person-hours (9 workdays; 12 calendar days); accepted version of the manuscript required 71 person-hours. Individual SR tasks ranged from 16 person-minutes (deduplication of search results) to 461 person-minutes (data extraction). The least time-consuming SR tasks were obtaining full-texts, searches, citation analysis, data synthesis, and deduplication. The most timeconsuming tasks were data extraction, write-up, abstract screening, full-text screening, and risk of bias. Facilitators and barriers mapped onto the following domains: knowledge; skills; memory, attention, and decision process; environmental context and resources; and technology and infrastructure. Two sets of peer reviewer feedback were received on the manuscript: the first included 34 comments requesting changes, 17 changes were made, requiring 173 person-minutes; the second requested 13 changes, and eight were made, requiring 121 person-minutes. Conclusion: A small and experienced systematic reviewer team using Systematic Review Automation tools who have protected time to focus solely on the SR can complete a moderately sized SR in 2 weeks. (C) 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:81 / 90
页数:10
相关论文
共 14 条
[1]
[Anonymous], J AM LIB ASS
[2]
Improving the conduct of systematic reviews: a process mining perspective [J].
Ba' Pham ;
Bagheri, Ebrahim ;
Rios, Patricia ;
Pourmasoumi, Asef ;
Robson, Reid C. ;
Hwee, Jeremiah ;
Isaranuwatchai, Wanrudee ;
Darvesh, Nazia ;
Page, Matthew J. ;
Tricco, Andrea C. .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2018, 103 :101-111
[3]
Making progress with the automation of systematic reviews: principles of the International Collaboration for the Automation of Systematic Reviews (ICASR) [J].
Beller, Elaine ;
Clark, Justin ;
Tsafnat, Guy ;
Adams, Clive ;
Diehl, Heinz ;
Lund, Hans ;
Ouzzani, Mourad ;
Thayer, Kristina ;
Thomas, James ;
Turner, Tari ;
Xia, Jun ;
Robinson, Karen ;
Glasziou, Paul .
SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS, 2018, 7
[4]
Analysis of the time and workers needed to conduct systematic reviews of medical interventions using data from the PROSPERO registry [J].
Borah, Rohit ;
Brown, Andrew W. ;
Capers, Patrice L. ;
Kaiser, Kathryn A. .
BMJ OPEN, 2017, 7 (02)
[5]
CONVINCING EVIDENCE FROM CONTROLLED AND UNCONTROLLED STUDIES ON THE LIPID-LOWERING EFFECT OF A STATIN [J].
Higgins, Julian .
COCHRANE DATABASE OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS, 2012, (12)
[6]
Liberati A, 2009, BMJ-BRIT MED J, V339, DOI [10.1136/bmj.b2700, 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097, 10.1016/j.ijsu.2010.02.007, 10.1186/2046-4053-4-1, 10.1016/j.ijsu.2010.07.299, 10.1136/bmj.b2535, 10.1136/bmj.i4086]
[7]
Machine learning for identifying Randomized Controlled Trials: An evaluation and practitioner's guide [J].
Marshall, Iain J. ;
Noel-Storr, Anna ;
Kuiper, Joel ;
Thomas, James ;
Wallace, Byron C. .
RESEARCH SYNTHESIS METHODS, 2018, 9 (04) :602-614
[8]
RobotReviewer: evaluation of a system for automatically assessing bias in clinical trials [J].
Marshall, Iain J. ;
Kuiper, Joel ;
Wallace, Byron C. .
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL INFORMATICS ASSOCIATION, 2016, 23 (01) :193-201
[9]
Making psychological theory useful for implementing evidence based practice: a consensus approach [J].
Michie, S ;
Johnston, M ;
Abraham, C ;
Lawton, R ;
Parker, D ;
Walker, A .
QUALITY & SAFETY IN HEALTH CARE, 2005, 14 (01) :26-33
[10]
Moving toward the automation of the systematic review process: a summary of discussions at the second meeting of International Collaboration for the Automation of Systematic Reviews (ICASR) [J].
O'Connor, Annette M. ;
Tsafnat, Guy ;
Gilbert, Stephen B. ;
Thayer, Kristina A. ;
Wolfe, Mary S. .
SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS, 2018, 7