Automation tools to support undertaking scoping reviews-Reference-Cited by-同舟云学术

Automation tools to support undertaking scoping reviews

Published:2024-06-17 Issue: Volume: Page:
ISSN:1759-2879
Container-title:Research Synthesis Methods
language:en
Short-container-title:Research Synthesis Methods

Author:

Khalil Hanan¹²^ORCID,Pollock Danielle³⁴^ORCID,McInerney Patricia⁵,Evans Catrin⁶,Moraes Erica B.⁷⁸,Godfrey Christina M.⁹,Alexander Lyndsay¹⁰¹¹,Tricco Andrea⁹¹²¹³,Peters Micah D. J.⁴¹⁴¹⁵,Pieper Dawid¹⁶¹⁷^ORCID,Saran Ashrita¹⁸^ORCID,Ameen Daniel¹⁹,Taneri Petek Eylul²⁰,Munn Zachary³⁴

Affiliation:

1. School of Psychology and Public Health, Department of Public Health La Trobe University Melbourne Australia

2. The Queensland Centre of Evidence Based Nursing and Midwifery: A JBI Centre of Excellence Brisbane Queensland Australia

3. JBI, University of Adelaide Adelaide Australia

4. Health Evidence Synthesis, Recommendations and Impact (HESRI), School of Public Health University of Adelaide Adelaide Australia

5. The Wits JBI Centre for Evidence‐Based Practice: A JBI Centre of Excellence, Faculty of Health Sciences University of the Witwatersrand South Africa

6. The Nottingham Centre for Evidence Based Healthcare: A JBI Centre of Excellence University of Nottingham UK

7. Nursing School, Department of Nursing Fundamentals and Administration Federal Fluminense University Rio de Janeiro Brazil

8. The Brazilian Centre of Evidence‐based Healthcare: A JBI Centre of Excellence – JBI Brazil

9. Queen's Collaboration for Health Care Quality: A JBI Centre of Excellence Queen's University School of Nursing Kingston Ontario Canada

10. The Scottish Centre for Evidence‐based Multi‐Professional Practice: A JBI Centre of Excellence Aberdeen UK

11. School of Health Sciences Robert Gordon University Aberdeen UK

12. Epidemiology Division and Institute for Health, Management, and Evaluation, Dalla Lana School of Public Health University of Toronto Toronto Ontario Canada

13. Knowledge Translation Program, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital Unity Health Toronto Toronto Ontario Canada

14. University of South Australia, Clinical and Health Sciences, Rosemary Bryant AO Research Centre Adelaide South Australia Australia

15. University of Adelaide, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, Adelaide Nursing School Adelaide Australia

16. Faculty of Health Sciences Brandenburg, Brandenburg Medical School (Theodor Fontane), Institute for Health Services and Health System Research Rüdersdorf Germany

17. Center for Health Services Research, Brandenburg Medical School (Theodor Fontane) Rüdersdorf Germany

18. Campbell South Asia India

19. Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, School of Medicine Monash University Australia

20. HRB‐Trials Methodology Research Network, College of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences University of Galway Galway Ireland

Abstract

AbstractObjectiveThis paper describes several automation tools and software that can be considered during evidence synthesis projects and provides guidance for their integration in the conduct of scoping reviews.Study Design and SettingThe guidance presented in this work is adapted from the results of a scoping review and consultations with the JBI Scoping Review Methodology group.ResultsThis paper describes several reliable, validated automation tools and software that can be used to enhance the conduct of scoping reviews. Developments in the automation of systematic reviews, and more recently scoping reviews, are continuously evolving. We detail several helpful tools in order of the key steps recommended by the JBI's methodological guidance for undertaking scoping reviews including team establishment, protocol development, searching, de‐duplication, screening titles and abstracts, data extraction, data charting, and report writing. While we include several reliable tools and software that can be used for the automation of scoping reviews, there are some limitations to the tools mentioned. For example, some are available in English only and their lack of integration with other tools results in limited interoperability.ConclusionThis paper highlighted several useful automation tools and software programs to use in undertaking each step of a scoping review. This guidance has the potential to inform collaborative efforts aiming at the development of evidence informed, integrated automation tools and software packages for enhancing the conduct of high‐quality scoping reviews.

Publisher

Wiley

Link

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/jrsm.1731

Reference74 articles.

1. Pandemic publishing: Medical journals strongly speed up their publication process for COVID-19

2. National Publication Productivity during the COVID-19 Pandemic—A Preliminary Exploratory Analysis of the 30 Countries Most Affected

3. Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach

4. JBI series paper 2: tailored evidence synthesis approaches are required to answer diverse questions: a pragmatic evidence synthesis toolkit from JBI

5. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation

Cited by 1 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献订阅此论文施引文献，注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献，订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

1. LLMscreen: A Python Package for Systematic Review Screening of Scientific Texts Using Prompt Engineering;2024-09-11