4.6 Review

Resource use during systematic review production varies widely: a scoping review

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY
Volume 139, Issue -, Pages 287-296

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.05.019

Keywords

Evidence synthesis; Time; Personnel; Costs; Resources; Efficient

Funding

  1. EU [CA17117]
  2. Danube University Krems

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study aimed to investigate the resource use and reasons for resource intensity during systematic review production. Project management and administration, study selection, data extraction, and critical appraisal were found to be the areas with the largest resource use.
Objective: We aimed to map the resource use during systematic review (SR) production and reasons why steps of the SR production are resource intensive to discover where the largest gain in improving efficiency might be possible. Study design and setting: We conducted a scoping review. An information specialist searched multiple databases (e.g., Ovid MEDLINE, Scopus) and implemented citation-based and grey literature searching. We employed dual and independent screenings of records at the title/abstract and full-text levels and data extraction. Results: We included 34 studies. Thirty-two reported on the resource use-mostly time; four described reasons why steps of the review process are resource intensive. Study selection, data extraction, and critical appraisal seem to be very resource intensive, while protocol development, literature search, or study retrieval take less time. Project management and administration required a large proportion of SR production time. Lack of experience, domain knowledge, use of collaborative and SR-tailored software, and good communication and management can be reasons why SR steps are resource intensive. Conclusion: Resource use during SR production varies widely. Areas with the largest resource use are administration and project management, study selection, data extraction, and critical appraisal of studies. (C) 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available