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

B Nussbaumer-Streit; M Ellen; I Klerings; R Sfetcu; N Riva; M Mahmić-Kaknjo; G Poulentzas; P Martinez; E Baladia; L E Ziganshina; M E Marqués; L Aguilar; A P Kassianos; G Frampton; A G Silva; L Affengruber; R Spjker; J Thomas; R C Berg; M Kontogiani; M Sousa; C Kontogiorgis; G Gartlehner; working group 3 in the EVBRES COST Action (https://evbres.eu)

doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.05.019

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

J Clin Epidemiol. 2021 Nov:139:287-296. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.05.019. Epub 2021 Jun 4.

Authors

B Nussbaumer-Streit¹, M Ellen², I Klerings³, R Sfetcu⁴, N Riva⁵, M Mahmić-Kaknjo⁶, G Poulentzas⁷, P Martinez⁸, E Baladia⁹, L E Ziganshina¹⁰, M E Marqués⁹, L Aguilar⁹, A P Kassianos¹¹, G Frampton¹², A G Silva¹³, L Affengruber¹⁴, R Spjker¹⁵, J Thomas¹⁶, R C Berg¹⁷, M Kontogiani¹⁸, M Sousa¹⁹, C Kontogiorgis²⁰, G Gartlehner²¹; working group 3 in the EVBRES COST Action (https://evbres.eu)

Affiliations

¹ Cochrane Austria, Danube University Krems, Krems a.d. Donau, Austria. Electronic address: barbara.nussbaumer-streit@donau-uni.ac.at.
² Department of Health Systems Management, Guilford Glazer Faculty of Business and Management and Faculty of Health Sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Israel; Institute of Health Policy Management and Evaluation, Dalla Lana School Of Public Health, University of Toronto, Canada.
³ Cochrane Austria, Danube University Krems, Krems a.d. Donau, Austria.
⁴ National School of Public Health, Management and Professional Development Bucharest, Romania; Spiru Haret University, Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences.
⁵ Department of Pathology, Faculty of Medicine and Surgery, University of Malta, Msida, Malta.
⁶ Department of Clinical Pharmacology, Cantonal Hospital Zenica, Zenica, Bosnia and Herzegovina; Faculty of Medicine, University of Zenica, Zenica, Bosnia and Herzegovina.
⁷ Laboratory of Hygiene and Environmental Protection, Department of Medicine, Democritus University of Thrace.
⁸ Centro de Análisis de la Evidencia Científica, Academia Española de Nutrición y Dietética, España; Techné research group. Department of knowledge engineering of the Faculty of Science. University of Granada. Spain.
⁹ Centro de Análisis de la Evidencia Científica, Academia Española de Nutrición y Dietética, España.
¹⁰ Cochrane Russia at the Russian Medical Academy for Continuing Professional Education (RMANPO) of the Ministry of Health of Russian Federation and the Kazan State Medical University of the Ministry of Health of Russian Federation.
¹¹ Department of Applied Health Research, University College London, London, UK; Department of Psychology, University of Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus.
¹² Southampton Health Technology Assessments Centre (SHTAC), Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, UK.
¹³ School of Health Sciences & CINTESIS.UA, University of Aveiro, Campus UNiversitário de Santiago, Portugal.
¹⁴ Cochrane Austria, Danube University Krems, Krems a.d. Donau, Austria; Department of Family Medicine, Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Maastricht University, The Netherlands.
¹⁵ Cochrane Netherlands, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, UMC Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands; Amsterdam UMC, Univ of Amsterdam, Amsterdam Public Health, Medical Library, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
¹⁶ EPPI-Centre, UCL, London, UK.
¹⁷ Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.
¹⁸ Department of Nutrition and Dietetics, School of Health Sciences and Education, Harokopio University, Athens, Greece.
¹⁹ Nutrition & Metabolism, NOVA Medical School, Faculdade de Ciências Médicas, Universidade NOVA de Lisboa, Campo dos Mártires da Pátria, 1169-056 Lisboa, Portugal; CINTESIS, NOVA Medical School, NMS, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Campo dos Mártires da Pátria, 1169-056 Lisboa, Portugal.
²⁰ Faculty of Medicine, University of Zenica, Zenica, Bosnia and Herzegovina.
²¹ Cochrane Austria, Danube University Krems, Krems a.d. Donau, Austria; RTI International, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA.

PMID: 34091021
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.05.019

Abstract

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.

Keywords: Costs; Efficient; Evidence synthesis; Personnel; Resources; Time.

Publication types

Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Review

MeSH terms

Biomedical Research / standards
Biomedical Research / statistics & numerical data
Data Collection* / methods
Data Collection* / standards
Data Collection* / statistics & numerical data
Humans
Research Design
Research Report* / standards
Systematic Reviews as Topic* / methods
Systematic Reviews as Topic* / standards