A full systematic review was completed in 2 weeks using automation tools: a case study

Justin Clark; Paul Glasziou; Chris Del Mar; Alexandra Bannach-Brown; Paulina Stehlik; Anna Mae Scott

doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.01.008

A full systematic review was completed in 2 weeks using automation tools: a case study

J Clin Epidemiol. 2020 May:121:81-90. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.01.008. Epub 2020 Jan 28.

Authors

Justin Clark¹, Paul Glasziou², Chris Del Mar², Alexandra Bannach-Brown², Paulina Stehlik², Anna Mae Scott²

Affiliations

¹ Institute for Evidence-Based Healthcare, Bond University, Gold Coast, Australia. Electronic address: jclark@bond.edu.au.
² Institute for Evidence-Based Healthcare, Bond University, Gold Coast, Australia.

PMID: 32004673
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.01.008

Abstract

Background and objectives: Systematic reviews (SRs) are time and resource intensive, requiring approximately 1 year from protocol registration to submission for publication. Our aim was to describe the process, facilitators, and barriers to completing the first 2-week full SR.

Study design and setting: We systematically reviewed evidence of the impact of increased fluid intake, on urinary tract infection (UTI) recurrence, in individuals at risk for UTIs. The review was conducted by experienced systematic reviewers with complementary skills (two researcher clinicians, an information specialist, and an epidemiologist), using Systematic Review Automation tools, and blocked off time for the duration of the project. The outcomes were time to complete the SR, time to complete individual SR tasks, facilitators and barriers to progress, and peer reviewer feedback on the SR manuscript. Times to completion were analyzed quantitatively (minutes and calendar days); facilitators and barriers were mapped onto the Theoretical Domains Framework; and peer reviewer feedback was analyzed quantitatively and narratively.

Results: The SR was completed in 61 person-hours (9 workdays; 12 calendar days); accepted version of the manuscript required 71 person-hours. Individual SR tasks ranged from 16 person-minutes (deduplication of search results) to 461 person-minutes (data extraction). The least time-consuming SR tasks were obtaining full-texts, searches, citation analysis, data synthesis, and deduplication. The most time-consuming tasks were data extraction, write-up, abstract screening, full-text screening, and risk of bias. Facilitators and barriers mapped onto the following domains: knowledge; skills; memory, attention, and decision process; environmental context and resources; and technology and infrastructure. Two sets of peer reviewer feedback were received on the manuscript: the first included 34 comments requesting changes, 17 changes were made, requiring 173 person-minutes; the second requested 13 changes, and eight were made, requiring 121 person-minutes.

Conclusion: A small and experienced systematic reviewer team using Systematic Review Automation tools who have protected time to focus solely on the SR can complete a moderately sized SR in 2 weeks.

Keywords: 2 week systematic review; 2wSR; Automation; Barriers; Facilitators; Methods improvement; Systematic review accelerator; Systematic reviews.

Publication types

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

MeSH terms

Abstracting and Indexing / statistics & numerical data
Data Collection / methods
Data Collection / statistics & numerical data
Fluid Therapy
Humans
Peer Review, Research
Publishing / statistics & numerical data*
Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
Recurrence
Time Factors*
Urinary Tract Infections / prevention & control*
Writing