Rapid review methods series: Guidance on the use of supportive software

Lisa Affengruber; Barbara Nussbaumer-Streit; Candyce Hamel; Miriam Van der Maten; James Thomas; Chris Mavergames; Rene Spijker; Gerald Gartlehner; Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group

doi:10.1136/bmjebm-2023-112530

Rapid review methods series: Guidance on the use of supportive software

BMJ Evid Based Med. 2024 Jan 19:bmjebm-2023-112530. doi: 10.1136/bmjebm-2023-112530. Online ahead of print.

Authors

Affiliations

¹ Department for Evidence-based Medicine and Evaluation, Cochrane Austria, University for Continuing Education Krems, Krems, Austria lisa.affengruber@donau-uni.ac.at.
² Department of Family Medicine, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
³ Department for Evidence-based Medicine and Evaluation, Cochrane Austria, University for Continuing Education Krems, Krems, Austria.
⁴ Canadian Association of Radiologists, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
⁵ School of Epidemiology and Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
⁶ Knowledge Institute, Dutch Association of Medical Specialists, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
⁷ University College London, UCL Social Research Institute, London, UK.
⁸ Cochrane Central Executive Team, London, UK.
⁹ Cochrane Netherlands, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, UMC Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
¹⁰ Center for Public Health Methods, RTI International, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA.

PMID: 38242566
DOI: 10.1136/bmjebm-2023-112530

Abstract

This paper is part of a series of methodological guidance from the Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group. Rapid reviews (RRs) use modified systematic review methods to accelerate the review process while maintaining systematic, transparent and reproducible methods. This paper guides how to use supportive software for RRs.We strongly encourage the use of supportive software throughout RR production. Specifically, we recommend (1) using collaborative online platforms that enable working in parallel, allow for real-time project management and centralise review details; (2) using automation software to support, but not entirely replace a human reviewer and human judgement and (3) being transparent in reporting the methodology and potential risk for bias due to the use of supportive software.

Keywords: Methods.