{"title":"A survey on current use of software tools for systematic literature reviews","authors":"Veerle Persy","doi":"10.56012/lxrcb5395","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Adoption of the EU Medical Devices Regulations and In Vitro Diagnostics Regulations has led to increased demand for systematic literature reviews. This article reports on a survey investigating the current use of software platforms and tools by regulatory medical writers and others involved in conducting systematic literature reviews. The survey was completed by 125 respondents from 31 countries, evenly spread across different levels of experience. Most respondents use a partially automated (35%) or fully manual process (59%). Familiarity with specific software to conduct systematic literature reviews was low, with most respondents (61%–84%) indicating they were unfamiliar with five software applications and tools. Data extraction was named as both the most time-consuming and error-prone step in the process. Process improvement, improvement of data extraction, and time saving were seen as topics where systematic literature review software could make the most valuable contribution.","PeriodicalId":37384,"journal":{"name":"Medical Writing","volume":"62 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Writing","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.56012/lxrcb5395","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Health Professions","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Adoption of the EU Medical Devices Regulations and In Vitro Diagnostics Regulations has led to increased demand for systematic literature reviews. This article reports on a survey investigating the current use of software platforms and tools by regulatory medical writers and others involved in conducting systematic literature reviews. The survey was completed by 125 respondents from 31 countries, evenly spread across different levels of experience. Most respondents use a partially automated (35%) or fully manual process (59%). Familiarity with specific software to conduct systematic literature reviews was low, with most respondents (61%–84%) indicating they were unfamiliar with five software applications and tools. Data extraction was named as both the most time-consuming and error-prone step in the process. Process improvement, improvement of data extraction, and time saving were seen as topics where systematic literature review software could make the most valuable contribution.
期刊介绍:
Medical Writing is a quarterly publication that aims to educate and inform medical writers in Europe and beyond. Each issue focuses on a specific theme, and all issues include feature articles and regular columns on topics relevant to the practice of medical writing. We welcome articles providing practical advice to medical writers; guidelines and reviews/summaries/updates of guidelines published elsewhere; original research; opinion pieces; interviews; and review articles.