Software tools to support title and abstract screening for systematic reviews in healthcare: an evaluation

Background Systematic reviews are vital to the pursuit of evidence-based medicine within healthcare. Screening titles and abstracts (T&Ab) for inclusion in a systematic review is an intensive, and often collaborative, step. The use of appropriate tools is therefore important. In this study, we identified and evaluated the usability of software tools that support T&Ab screening for systematic reviews within healthcare research. Methods We identified software tools using three search methods: a web-based search; a search of the online “systematic review toolbox”; and screening of references in existing literature. We included tools that were accessible and available for testing at the time of the study (December 2018), do not require specific computing infrastructure and provide basic screening functionality for systematic reviews. Key properties of each software tool were identified using a feature analysis adapted for this purpose. This analysis included a weighting developed by a group of medical researchers, therefore prioritising the most relevant features. The highest scoring tools from the feature analysis were then included in a user survey, in which we further investigated the suitability of the tools for supporting T&Ab screening amongst systematic reviewers working in medical research. Results Fifteen tools met our inclusion criteria. They vary significantly in relation to cost, scope and intended user community. Six of the identified tools (Abstrackr, Colandr, Covidence, DRAGON, EPPI-Reviewer and Rayyan) scored higher than 75% in the feature analysis and were included in the user survey. Of these, Covidence and Rayyan were the most popular with the survey respondents. Their usability scored highly across a range of metrics, with all surveyed researchers ( n  = 6) stating that they would be likely (or very likely) to use these tools in the future. Conclusions Based on this study, we would recommend Covidence and Rayyan to systematic reviewers looking for suitable and easy to use tools to support T&Ab screening within healthcare research. These two tools consistently demonstrated good alignment with user requirements. We acknowledge, however, the role of some of the other tools we considered in providing more specialist features that may be of great importance to many researchers.

[1]  M. Page,et al.  Registration of systematic reviews in PROSPERO: 30,000 records and counting , 2018, Systematic Reviews.

[2]  Barbara Ann Kitchenham,et al.  Evaluating SW Eng. methods and tools, part 8: analysing a feature analysis evaluation , 1997, SOEN.

[3]  D. Cook,et al.  Systematic Reviews: Synthesis of Best Evidence for Clinical Decisions , 1997, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[4]  S. Gopalakrishnan,et al.  Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis: Understanding the Best Evidence in Primary Healthcare , 2013, Journal of family medicine and primary care.

[5]  D. Moher,et al.  Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement , 2009, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[6]  D. Moher Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses [ressource électronique]: the PRISMA statement , 2009 .

[7]  David Moher,et al.  Epidemiology and Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews , 2007, PLoS medicine.

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

[9]  J. Higgins,et al.  Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, Version 5.1.0. The Cochrane Collaboration , 2013 .

[10]  Barbara Ann Kitchenham Evaluating software engineering methods and tools, part 7: planning feature analysis evaluation , 1997, SOEN.

[11]  Barbara Kitchenham,et al.  DESMET: a methodology for evaluating software engineering methods and tools , 1997 .

[12]  Francisca Losavio,et al.  Feature analysis for architectural evaluation methods , 2006, J. Syst. Softw..

[13]  J. Higgins,et al.  Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions , 2010, International Coaching Psychology Review.

[14]  Pearl Brereton,et al.  Tools to support systematic reviews in software engineering: a feature analysis , 2014, EASE '14.

[15]  Henrik Hedberg,et al.  A preliminary evaluation of software inspection tools, with the DESMET method , 2005, Fifth International Conference on Quality Software (QSIC'05).

[16]  Barbara A. Kitchenham,et al.  A Methodology for Evaluating Software Engineering Methods and Tools , 1992, Experimental Software Engineering Issues.