Cathalijn H C Leenaars, Frans Stafleu, André Bleich
{"title":"用于系统综述文献筛选和数据提取的软件工具:从简洁的正式测试中获得的定性用户体验。","authors":"Cathalijn H C Leenaars, Frans Stafleu, André Bleich","doi":"10.14573/altex.2409251","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Systematic reviews (SRs) are an important tool in implementing the 3Rs in preclinical research. With the ever-increasing amount of scientific literature, SRs require increasing time-investments. Thus, using the most efficient review tools is essential. Most available tools aid the screening process, tools for data-extraction and / or multiple review phases are relatively scarce. Using a single platform for all review phases allows for auto-transfer of references from one phase to the next, which enables work on multiple phases at the same time. We performed succinct formal tests of four multiphase review tools that are free or relatively affordable: Covidence, Eppi, SRDR+ and SYRF. Our tests comprised full-text screening, sham data extraction and discrepancy resolution in the context of parts of a systematic review. Screening was performed as per protocol. Sham data extraction comprised free text, numerical and categorial data. Both reviewers kept a log of their experiences with the platforms throughout. These logs were qualitatively summarized and supplemented with further user experiences. We show value of all tested tools in the SR process. Which tool is optimal depends on multiple factors, comprising previous experience with the tool, but also review type, review questions and review team member enthusiasm.</p>","PeriodicalId":51231,"journal":{"name":"Altex-Alternatives To Animal Experimentation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Software tools for systematic review literature screening and data extraction: Qualitative user experiences from succinct formal tests.\",\"authors\":\"Cathalijn H C Leenaars, Frans Stafleu, André Bleich\",\"doi\":\"10.14573/altex.2409251\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Systematic reviews (SRs) are an important tool in implementing the 3Rs in preclinical research. With the ever-increasing amount of scientific literature, SRs require increasing time-investments. Thus, using the most efficient review tools is essential. Most available tools aid the screening process, tools for data-extraction and / or multiple review phases are relatively scarce. Using a single platform for all review phases allows for auto-transfer of references from one phase to the next, which enables work on multiple phases at the same time. We performed succinct formal tests of four multiphase review tools that are free or relatively affordable: Covidence, Eppi, SRDR+ and SYRF. Our tests comprised full-text screening, sham data extraction and discrepancy resolution in the context of parts of a systematic review. Screening was performed as per protocol. Sham data extraction comprised free text, numerical and categorial data. Both reviewers kept a log of their experiences with the platforms throughout. These logs were qualitatively summarized and supplemented with further user experiences. We show value of all tested tools in the SR process. Which tool is optimal depends on multiple factors, comprising previous experience with the tool, but also review type, review questions and review team member enthusiasm.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51231,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Altex-Alternatives To Animal Experimentation\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Altex-Alternatives To Animal Experimentation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.14573/altex.2409251\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Altex-Alternatives To Animal Experimentation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14573/altex.2409251","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
系统综述(SR)是临床前研究中实施 3R 的重要工具。随着科学文献数量的不断增加,系统综述需要投入越来越多的时间。因此,使用最有效的综述工具至关重要。现有的大多数工具都能帮助筛选过程,但用于数据提取和/或多个审查阶段的工具却相对匮乏。在所有审查阶段使用单一平台可以自动将参考文献从一个阶段转移到下一个阶段,这样就可以同时进行多个阶段的工作。我们对四种免费或价格相对低廉的多阶段审稿工具进行了简洁的正式测试:Covidence、Eppi、SRDR+ 和 SYRF。我们的测试包括全文筛选、虚假数据提取和系统综述部分内容的差异解决。筛选按照协议进行。虚假数据提取包括自由文本、数字和分类数据。两位审稿人在整个过程中都记录了他们使用平台的经验。我们对这些日志进行了定性总结,并进一步补充了用户体验。我们展示了所有测试工具在 SR 流程中的价值。哪种工具是最佳的取决于多种因素,包括以前使用该工具的经验,以及评审类型、评审问题和评审团队成员的热情。
Software tools for systematic review literature screening and data extraction: Qualitative user experiences from succinct formal tests.
Systematic reviews (SRs) are an important tool in implementing the 3Rs in preclinical research. With the ever-increasing amount of scientific literature, SRs require increasing time-investments. Thus, using the most efficient review tools is essential. Most available tools aid the screening process, tools for data-extraction and / or multiple review phases are relatively scarce. Using a single platform for all review phases allows for auto-transfer of references from one phase to the next, which enables work on multiple phases at the same time. We performed succinct formal tests of four multiphase review tools that are free or relatively affordable: Covidence, Eppi, SRDR+ and SYRF. Our tests comprised full-text screening, sham data extraction and discrepancy resolution in the context of parts of a systematic review. Screening was performed as per protocol. Sham data extraction comprised free text, numerical and categorial data. Both reviewers kept a log of their experiences with the platforms throughout. These logs were qualitatively summarized and supplemented with further user experiences. We show value of all tested tools in the SR process. Which tool is optimal depends on multiple factors, comprising previous experience with the tool, but also review type, review questions and review team member enthusiasm.
期刊介绍:
ALTEX publishes original articles, short communications, reviews, as well as news and comments and meeting reports. Manuscripts submitted to ALTEX are evaluated by two expert reviewers. The evaluation takes into account the scientific merit of a manuscript and its contribution to animal welfare and the 3R principle.