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

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. We systematically reviewed evidence of the impact...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of clinical epidemiology Vol. 121; pp. 81 - 90
Main Authors: Clark, Justin, Glasziou, Paul, Del Mar, Chris, Bannach-Brown, Alexandra, Stehlik, Paulina, Scott, Anna Mae
Format: Journal Article
Language:English
Published: United States Elsevier Inc 01.05.2020
Elsevier Limited
Subjects:
2 week systematic review
2wSR
Abstracting and Indexing - statistics & numerical data
Automation
Barriers
Bias
Case reports
Citation analysis
Data Collection - methods
Data Collection - statistics & numerical data
Domains
Epidemiology
Facilitators
Feedback
Fluid intake
Fluid Therapy
Humans
Literature reviews
Meetings
Methods improvement
Peer review
Peer Review, Research
Publishing - statistics & numerical data
Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
Recurrence
Screening
Skills
Systematic review
Systematic review accelerator
Systematic reviews
Time Factors
Urinary tract
Urinary tract infections
Urinary Tract Infections - prevention & control
Workweeks
Writing
Methods improvement
Automation
Barriers
Systematic review accelerator
Systematic reviews
Facilitators
2wSR
2 week systematic review
ISSN:0895-4356, 1878-5921, 1878-5921
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary: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. 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. 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 time-consuming 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. 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.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 14
ObjectType-Report-3
ObjectType-Case Study-4
content type line 23
ObjectType-Undefined-3
ISSN:0895-4356
1878-5921
1878-5921
DOI:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.01.008