The development of software to support multiple systematic review types: the Joanna Briggs Institute System for the Unified Management, Assessment and Review of Information (JBI SUMARI)

Aim: Systematic reviews play an important role in ensuring trustworthy recommendations in healthcare. However, systematic reviews can be laborious to undertake and as such software has been developed to assist in the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews. The Joanna Briggs Institute and its collaborating centres consist of thousands of researchers, academics and clinicians across the globe conducting systematic reviews of various types. To support them in their work, modern software and online tools are required. Our aim was to develop a software program to support systematic reviewers across the globe. Methods: A working party was formed with extensive consultation with members of the Joanna Briggs Collaboration focusing on ideal features of a software program to support systematic reviews. The new systematic review software was built using an agile methodology and designed to be a modern web application. Results: The new systematic review software, the Joanna Briggs Institute System for the Unified Management, Assessment and Review of Information (JBI SUMARI), was successfully developed through an iterative process of development, feedback, testing and review. The software is now available (https://www.jbisumari.org/) and supports the entire systematic review process for different types of systematic reviews. Conclusions: An agile software development approach combined with wide consultation and user testing can facilitate systematic review software design and development. This new software can support systematic reviews and guideline developers to create systematic reviews for a diverse range of questions.

[1]  G. Guyatt,et al.  GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations , 2008, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[2]  Wolfgang Viechtbauer,et al.  Conducting Meta-Analyses in R with the metafor Package , 2010 .

[3]  Donna Ciliska,et al.  Expediting systematic reviews: methods and implications of rapid reviews , 2010, Implementation science : IS.

[4]  Zachary Munn,et al.  Qualitative research synthesis: methodological guidance for systematic reviewers utilizing meta-aggregation , 2015, International journal of evidence-based healthcare.

[5]  Zachary Munn,et al.  Establishing confidence in the output of qualitative research synthesis: the ConQual approach , 2014, BMC Medical Research Methodology.

[6]  Alan Pearson,et al.  The systematic review: an overview. , 2014, The American journal of nursing.

[7]  Jos Kleijnen,et al.  What is a rapid review? A methodological exploration of rapid reviews in Health Technology Assessments. , 2012, International journal of evidence-based healthcare.

[8]  Rick Wiechula,et al.  The JBI model of evidence-based healthcare. , 2005, International journal of evidence-based healthcare.

[9]  David Moher,et al.  Evidence summaries: the evolution of a rapid review approach , 2012, Systematic Reviews.

[10]  P. Shekelle,et al.  Developing clinical practice guidelines: types of evidence and outcomes; values and economics, synthesis, grading, and presentation and deriving recommendations , 2012, Implementation Science.

[11]  Alan Pearson,et al.  Balancing the evidence: incorporating the synthesis of qualitative data into systematic reviews , 2004 .

[12]  Byron C. Wallace,et al.  Living systematic reviews: 2. Combining human and machine effort. , 2017, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[13]  Tore Dybå,et al.  Empirical studies of agile software development: A systematic review , 2008, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[14]  Andrew W. Brown,et al.  Analysis of the time and workers needed to conduct systematic reviews of medical interventions using data from the PROSPERO registry , 2017, BMJ Open.

[15]  Pearl Brereton,et al.  Systematic review toolbox: a catalogue of tools to support systematic reviews , 2015, EASE.

[16]  Mourad Ouzzani,et al.  Making progress with the automation of systematic reviews: principles of the International Collaboration for the Automation of Systematic Reviews (ICASR) , 2018, Systematic Reviews.

[17]  J. Ioannidis,et al.  The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration , 2009, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[18]  Zachary Munn,et al.  What kind of systematic review should I conduct? A proposed typology and guidance for systematic reviewers in the medical and health sciences , 2018, BMC Medical Research Methodology.

[19]  Lisa Hartling,et al.  Technology-assisted risk of bias assessment in systematic reviews: a prospective cross-sectional evaluation of the RobotReviewer machine learning tool. , 2017, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[20]  Zachary Munn,et al.  Translational Science and Evidence-Based Healthcare: A Clarification and Reconceptualization of How Knowledge Is Generated and Used in Healthcare , 2012, Nursing research and practice.