对当前使用软件工具进行系统文献综述的调查

Q2 Health Professions

Medical Writing Pub Date : 2023-09-22 DOI:10.56012/lxrcb5395

Veerle Persy

{"title":"对当前使用软件工具进行系统文献综述的调查","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":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"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\":null,\"pages\":null},\"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}","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

摘要

欧盟医疗器械法规和体外诊断法规的采用导致对系统文献综述的需求增加。本文报告了一项调查，调查了监管医学作家和其他参与进行系统文献综述的人目前对软件平台和工具的使用情况。该调查由来自31个国家的125名受访者完成，他们平均分布在不同的经验水平上。大多数受访者使用部分自动化(35%)或完全手动(59%)的流程。对进行系统文献综述的特定软件的熟悉程度很低，大多数受访者(61%-84%)表示他们不熟悉五种软件应用程序和工具。数据提取被认为是该过程中最耗时和最容易出错的步骤。过程改进、数据提取的改进和节省时间被视为系统文献回顾软件可以做出最有价值贡献的主题。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

A survey on current use of software tools for systematic literature reviews

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.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

Medical Writing Health Professions-Medical Terminology

CiteScore

0.40

自引率

0.00%

发文量

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.