The Systematic Review Toolbox: keeping up to date with tools to support evidence synthesis

Eugenie Evelynne Johnson; Hannah O'Keefe; Anthea Sutton; Christopher Marshall

doi:10.1186/s13643-022-02122-z

The Systematic Review Toolbox: keeping up to date with tools to support evidence synthesis

Syst Rev. 2022 Dec 1;11(1):258. doi: 10.1186/s13643-022-02122-z.

Authors

Eugenie Evelynne Johnson^{1

2}, Hannah O'Keefe^{3

4}, Anthea Sutton⁵, Christopher Marshall⁶

Affiliations

¹ Population Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK. eugenie.johnson@newcastle.ac.uk.
² NIHR Innovation Observatory, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK. eugenie.johnson@newcastle.ac.uk.
³ Population Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
⁴ NIHR Innovation Observatory, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
⁵ School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
⁶ York Health Economics Consortium, University of York, York, UK.

Abstract

Background: The Systematic Review (SR) Toolbox was developed in 2014 to collate tools that can be used to support the systematic review process. Since its inception, the breadth of evidence synthesis methodologies has expanded greatly. This work describes the process of updating the SR Toolbox in 2022 to reflect these changes in evidence synthesis methodology. We also briefly analysed included tools and guidance to identify any potential gaps in what is currently available to researchers.

Methods: We manually extracted all guidance and software tools contained within the SR Toolbox in February 2022. A single reviewer, with a second checking a proportion, extracted and analysed information from records contained within the SR Toolbox using Microsoft Excel. Using this spreadsheet and Microsoft Access, the SR Toolbox was updated to reflect expansion of evidence synthesis methodologies and brief analysis conducted.

Results: The updated version of the SR Toolbox was launched on 13 May 2022, with 235 software tools and 112 guidance documents included. Regarding review families, most software tools (N = 223) and guidance documents (N = 78) were applicable to systematic reviews. However, there were fewer tools and guidance documents applicable to reviews of reviews (N = 66 and N = 22, respectively), while qualitative reviews were less served by guidance documents (N = 19). In terms of review production stages, most guidance documents surrounded quality assessment (N = 70), while software tools related to searching and synthesis (N = 84 and N = 82, respectively). There appears to be a paucity of tools and guidance relating to stakeholder engagement (N = 2 and N = 3, respectively).

Conclusions: The SR Toolbox provides a platform for those undertaking evidence syntheses to locate guidance and software tools to support different aspects of the review process across multiple review types. However, this work has also identified potential gaps in guidance and software that could inform future research.

Keywords: Evidence synthesis; Guidance; Software; Support; Systematic review; Tools.

Publication types

Letter

MeSH terms

Chlorhexidine*
Humans
Research Personnel*
Software
Stakeholder Participation
Systematic Reviews as Topic

Substances

Chlorhexidine