Systematic review automation tools improve efficiency but lack of knowledge impedes their adoption: a survey.

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna Mae Scott ◽  
Connor Forbes ◽  
Justin Clark ◽  
Matt Carter ◽  
Paul Glasziou ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Improve Efficiency ◽  
Automation Tools ◽  
Lack Of Knowledge

scholarly journals Systematic review automation tool use by systematic reviewers, health technology assessors and clinical guideline developers: tools used, abandoned, and desired

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna Mae Scott ◽  
Connor Forbes ◽  
Justin Clark ◽  
Matt Carter ◽  
Paul Glasziou ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Guideline ◽  
Guideline Development ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Tool Development ◽  
Time Savings ◽  
Automation Tools ◽  
Question Survey

Objective We investigated the use of systematic review automation tools by systematic reviewers, health technology assessors and clinical guideline developers. Study design and settings An online, 16-question survey was distributed across several evidence synthesis, health technology assessment and guideline development organisations internationally. We asked the respondents what tools they use and abandon, how often and when they use the tools, their perceived time savings and accuracy, and desired new tools. Descriptive statistics were used to report the results. Results 253 respondents completed the survey; 89% have used systematic review automation tools - most frequently whilst screening (79%). Respondents' Top 3 tools include: Covidence (45%), RevMan (35%), Rayyan and GRADEPro (both 22%); most commonly abandoned were Rayyan (19%), Covidence (15%), DistillerSR (14%) and RevMan (13%). Majority thought tools saved time (80%) and increased accuracy (54%). Respondents taught themselves to how to use the tools (72%), and were most often prevented by lack of knowledge from their adoption (51%). Most new tool development was suggested for the searching and data extraction stages. Conclusion Automation tools are likely to take on an increasingly important role in high quality and timely reviews. Further work is required in training and dissemination of automation tools and ensuring they meet the desirable features of those conducting systematic reviews.

An Artificial-Intelligence-Based Semantic Assist Framework for Judicial Trials

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 531-540
Author(s):  
Yaohui JIN ◽  
Hao HE
Keyword(s):  
Artificial Intelligence ◽  
Image Classification ◽  
Text Processing ◽  
Common Knowledge ◽  
Voice Recognition ◽  
Complex Task ◽  
Improve Efficiency ◽  
Trial Process ◽  
Routine Tasks ◽  
Automation Tools

AbstractDue to their success in routine tasks such as voice recognition, image classification, and text processing, extensive attention has been aroused on how to use artificial intelligence (AI)-based automation tools in the judicial-trial process to improve efficiency. Meanwhile, judicial trial is a complex task that requires accurate insight and subtle analysis of the cases, law, and common knowledge. Applying the results provided by AI-based automation tools directly to the judicial-trial process is controversial due to their irregular logic and low accuracy. Based on this observation, this article investigates the logic underlined in judicial trials and the technical characteristics of AI, and proposes an AI-based semantic assist approach for judicial trials that is logical and transparent to the judges.

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

2020 ◽  
Vol 121 ◽  
pp. 81-90 ◽  
Author(s):  
Justin Clark ◽  
Paul Glasziou ◽  
Chris Del Mar ◽  
Alexandra Bannach-Brown ◽  
Paulina Stehlik ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Automation Tools ◽  
Full Systematic Review

scholarly journals Technical Standards for Integrating Automation Tools for Evidence Synthesis

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexandra Bannach-Brown ◽  
Paul Glasziou ◽  
Matt Carter
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Research Question ◽  
Research Process ◽  
Minimum Level ◽  
Technical Standards ◽  
Steep Learning Curve ◽  
Potential Barriers ◽  
Automation Tools

Systematic review and meta-analysis are powerful tools to provide an unbiased overview of all available literature addressing a specific research question. However, systematic reviews are resource-intensive. To address this, the development of automation tools to aid systematic review research is increasing. But despite the development of these automation tools, recent research suggests that uptake of these tools is slow among evidence synthesis researchers and are potential barriers to using automation tools which include: steep learning curve, mismatched workflow, and lack of support. Here we propose a set of standards for automation tools and platforms that have been built to aid the systematic review community. The aim of these standards is to improve the integration of different tools into the research process and to increase transparency in the field of automation tools for evidence synthesis. The technical standards set out a minimum level and format of documentation required for publishing and disseminating automation tools. Further, we present an orchestrator platform, the Integration Interface, a system to bring compliant automation tools together, independent of programming language, into a succinct workflow. The Integration Interface aims to reduce the barriers associated with using a single or multiple automation tools in the evidence synthesis research process.

scholarly journals Development and uptake of an online systematic review platform: the early years of the CAMARADES Systematic Review Facility (SyRF)

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. e100103
Author(s):  
Zsanett Bahor ◽  
Jing Liao ◽  
Gillian Currie ◽  
Can Ayder ◽  
Malcolm Macleod ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Best Practice ◽  
Research Question ◽  
Outcome Data ◽  
Early Years ◽  
Preclinical Research ◽  
Disease Aetiology ◽  
Automated Tools ◽  
Automation Tools ◽  
Research Domains

Preclinical research is a vital step in the drug discovery pipeline and more generally in helping to better understand human disease aetiology and its management. Systematic reviews (SRs) can be powerful in summarising and appraising this evidence concerning a specific research question, to highlight areas of improvements, areas for further research and areas where evidence may be sufficient to take forward to other research domains, for instance clinical trial. Guidance and tools for preclinical research synthesis remain limited despite their clear utility. We aimed to create an online end-to-end platform primarily for conducting SRs of preclinical studies, that was flexible enough to support a wide variety of experimental designs, was adaptable to different research questions, would allow users to adopt emerging automated tools and support them during their review process using best practice. In this article, we introduce the Systematic Review Facility (https://syrf.org.uk), which was launched in 2016 and designed to support primarily preclinical SRs from small independent projects to large, crowdsourced projects. We discuss the architecture of the app and its features, including the opportunity to collaborate easily, to efficiently manage projects, to screen and annotate studies for important features (metadata), to extract outcome data into a secure database, and tailor these steps to each project. We introduce how we are working to leverage the use of automation tools and allow the integration of these services to accelerate and automate steps in the systematic review workflow.

The effects of low-ratio n-6/n-3 PUFA on biomarkers of inflammation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yali Wei ◽  
Yan Meng ◽  
Na Li ◽  
Qian Wang ◽  
Liyong Chen
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Fatty Acid ◽  
Polyunsaturated Fatty Acid ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Chain Polyunsaturated Fatty Acid ◽  
Inflammation Markers ◽  
Pufa Supplementation ◽  
Long Chain

The purpose of the systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine if low-ratio n-6/n-3 long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acid (PUFA) supplementation affects serum inflammation markers based on current studies.

Parent Education in Studies With Nonverbal and Minimally Verbal Participants With Autism Spectrum Disorder: A Systematic Review

2020 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 890-902
Author(s):  
Lynn Kern Koegel ◽  
Katherine M. Bryan ◽  
Pumpki Lei Su ◽  
Mohini Vaidya ◽  
Stephen Camarata
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Autism Spectrum Disorder ◽  
Parent Education ◽  
Autism Spectrum ◽  
Verbal Communication ◽  
Fidelity Of Implementation ◽  
Spectrum Disorder ◽  
Education Programs ◽  
Minimally Verbal ◽  
Parent Education Programs

Purpose The purpose of this systematic review was to identify parent education procedures implemented in intervention studies focused on expressive verbal communication for nonverbal (NV) or minimally verbal (MV) children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Parent education has been shown to be an essential component in the habilitation of individuals with ASD. Parents of individuals with ASD who are NV or MV may particularly benefit from parent education in order to provide opportunities for communication and to support their children across the life span. Method ProQuest databases were searched between the years of 1960 and 2018 to identify articles that targeted verbal communication in MV and NV individuals with ASD. A total of 1,231 were evaluated to assess whether parent education was implemented. We found 36 studies that included a parent education component. These were reviewed with regard to (a) the number of participants and participants' ages, (b) the parent education program provided, (c) the format of the parent education, (d) the duration of the parent education, (e) the measurement of parent education, and (f) the parent fidelity of implementation scores. Results The results of this analysis showed that very few studies have included a parent education component, descriptions of the parent education programs are unclear in most studies, and few studies have scored the parents' implementation of the intervention. Conclusions Currently, there is great variability in parent education programs in regard to participant age, hours provided, fidelity of implementation, format of parent education, and type of treatment used. Suggestions are made to provide both a more comprehensive description and consistent measurement of parent education programs.

Characteristics of the Frequency-Following Response to Speech in Neonates and Potential Applicability in Clinical Practice: A Systematic Review

2020 ◽  
Vol 63 (5) ◽  
pp. 1618-1635
Author(s):  
Céline Richard ◽  
Mary Lauren Neel ◽  
Arnaud Jeanvoine ◽  
Sharon Mc Connell ◽  
Alison Gehred ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Neurodevelopmental Outcomes ◽  
Frequency Following Response ◽  
Ovid Medline ◽  
Published Evidence ◽  
Mesh Terms ◽  
Potential Applicability ◽  
Clinical Potential

Purpose We sought to critically analyze and evaluate published evidence regarding feasibility and clinical potential for predicting neurodevelopmental outcomes of the frequency-following responses (FFRs) to speech recordings in neonates (birth to 28 days). Method A systematic search of MeSH terms in the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied HealthLiterature, Embase, Google Scholar, Ovid Medline (R) and E-Pub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations and Daily, Web of Science, SCOPUS, COCHRANE Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov was performed. Manual review of all items identified in the search was performed by two independent reviewers. Articles were evaluated based on the level of methodological quality and evidence according to the RTI item bank. Results Seven articles met inclusion criteria. None of the included studies reported neurodevelopmental outcomes past 3 months of age. Quality of the evidence ranged from moderate to high. Protocol variations were frequent. Conclusions Based on this systematic review, the FFR to speech can capture both temporal and spectral acoustic features in neonates. It can accurately be recorded in a fast and easy manner at the infant's bedside. However, at this time, further studies are needed to identify and validate which FFR features could be incorporated as an addition to standard evaluation of infant sound processing evaluation in subcortico-cortical networks. This review identifies the need for further research focused on identifying specific features of the neonatal FFRs, those with predictive value for early childhood outcomes to help guide targeted early speech and hearing interventions.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document