These were reviewed by a second researcher prior to the collection of information and feature scoring for each tool. A single evaluator (HH) devised assessment criteria - which can be found in the supplementary materials (Additional file 1). The features were grouped into themes, such as “Economic” or “Process Management”, providing an easy way to identify areas of strength and weakness in each tool. Five researchers participated in a discussion group during which a list of potential features were presented the researchers added, removed and revised the list of features until a consensus was reached.
How can you import a profile to dragon medical mac software#
A list of relevant features was devised by one researcher (HH), in part drawing on previous feature analyses of software tools for systematic reviews, as well as consulting with medical researchers involved in systematic reviews. The feature analysis developed in this study uses the “screening mode design” described in these guidelines. Analysis of the individual features also provides the evaluator with an insight into the strengths and weaknesses of the individual software tools and the overall group.Īs part of the DESMET method (a methodology for evaluating software engineering methods and tools), guidelines for conducting feature analyses of software applications were published by Kitchenham and colleagues in 1993. Each feature is then assessed, for each tool being considered, to generate a score. This involves developing a list of relevant features that a software tool developed for a specific purpose, such as T&Ab screening, might be expected to possess. This work may be of particular interest to researchers new to systematic reviews, looking to change their approach to screening or those in the position of selecting an appropriate tool for a collaboration.Ĭonducting a feature analysis of a collection of software applications with similar applications is a well-recognised method in software engineering.
Additionally, the user experience of several tools is investigated by a survey of several researchers. We develop a feature analysis framework to compare software applications for T&Ab screening, using input from researchers to determine the areas of most importance. This scoping review aims to identify, describe and evaluate the usability of the available software tools that support the T&Ab screening process for healthcare research to enable researchers to select the most appropriate for their work. Previous studies have only reviewed tools that support the entire systematic review process, and in each case have largely focussed on tools targeted at specific fields of research (such as agriculture or software engineering). The selection of the most appropriate tool to support a review project or research collaboration will depend on the specific skill set and processes of the local research environment. These tools are a mix of commercial and academic projects, which vary greatly in style, scope and cost.
In response to the growing need for support for T&Ab screening, a large number of software tools have been developed to facilitate this stage of the systematic review process. To divide the workload and enable all of the articles to be screened more than once - in accordance with best practice guidelines - this stage of the review is often shared between several collaborators. The first round of screening, typically title and abstract (T&Ab) screening, can be time-consuming. Systematic reviews necessitate screening large numbers of articles to ascertain whether they meet specified inclusion criteria. In 2017, 11,000 systematic reviews were registered with PROSPERO. A report published in 2007 identified 300 systematic reviews indexed in Medline in 1 month. In healthcare, systematic reviews are vital to the pursuit of evidence-based medicine they identify gaps in knowledge and agreement between different studies and provide the evidence required to move confidently from interventions to policy. Systematic reviews are a form of research synthesis that use systematic methods to find, critically analyse and collate the results of existing studies. As the number of primary research papers increases, so does the need for secondary research that consolidates and summarises their findings.
Since the 1980‘s the field of research synthesis has grown exponentially.
0 kommentar(er)
