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。

IF 4.5 2区 医学 Q2 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL Altex-Alternatives To Animal Experimentation Pub Date : 2024-10-10 DOI:10.14573/altex.2409251
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":" ","pages":""},"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\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"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。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Altex-Alternatives To Animal Experimentation
Altex-Alternatives To Animal Experimentation MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
7.70
自引率
8.90%
发文量
89
审稿时长
2 months
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.
期刊最新文献
Impact of gut permeability on estimation of oral bioavailability for chemicals in commerce and the environment. Software tools for systematic review literature screening and data extraction: Qualitative user experiences from succinct formal tests. The Virtual Human Platform for Safety Assessment (VHP4Safety) project: Next generation chemical safety assessment based on human data. Characterization of the C17.2 cell line as testing system for endocrine disruption-induced developmental neurotoxicity. Performance of the DASF compared to other combinations of OECD NAMs for eye hazard identification of surfactants.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1