生活评论是一种越来越受欢迎的研究范式。“生活”方法的目的是允许快速整理,对一个重要研究课题的不断发展的证据进行评估和综合,能够及时影响患者护理和公共卫生政策。然而,生活评论是时间和资源密集型的。新证据的积累和评论研究主题中发展的可能性可能会给活的评论工作流程带来独特的挑战。为了调查软件工具的潜力,以支持生活系统或快速审查,我们通过系统审查工具箱网站上包含的工具进行了叙述性审查。我们确定了11种具有相关功能的工具,并讨论了这些工具在实时审查工作流程的不同步骤中的重要功能。四个工具(NestedKnowledge,SWIFT-ActiveScreener,DistillerSR,EPPI-审阅者)涵盖了多个,审查过程的连续步骤,其余工具涉及工作流程的特定组件,包括范围界定和方案制定,参考文献检索,自动数据提取,数据的写入和传播。我们确定了几种可以使生活评论更有效和实用的方法。其中大多数侧重于一般的工作流管理,或者通过人工智能和机器学习实现自动化,在筛选过程中。自动化的更复杂的使用主要针对生活快速审查,以提高生产速度或证据地图,以扩大地图的范围。我们使用案例研究来强调将工具纳入实时审查工作流程和流程的一些障碍和挑战。这些包括增加的工作量,组织的需要,确保与开发定制自动化工具相关的及时传播和挑战,以促进审查过程。我们描述了当前的最终用户工具如何应对这些挑战,以及哪些知识差距仍然存在,可以通过未来的工具开发来解决。专门的网络存在,用于自动传播正在进行的证据更新,而不是仅仅依靠同行评审的期刊出版物,帮助使一个活生生的证据合成的努力值得。尽管提供了基本的生活审查功能,可以进一步开发现有的最终用户工具,以与其他工具互操作,以无缝支持多个工作流程步骤,为了解决从更多来源进行更广泛的自动证据检索的问题,并改善审查更新之间的证据传播。
Living reviews are an increasingly popular research paradigm. The purpose of a \'living\' approach is to allow rapid collation, appraisal and synthesis of evolving evidence on an important research topic, enabling timely influence on patient care and public health policy. However, living reviews are time- and resource-intensive. The accumulation of new evidence and the possibility of developments within the
review\'s research topic can introduce unique challenges into the living
review workflow. To investigate the potential of software tools to support living systematic or rapid reviews, we present a narrative
review informed by an examination of tools contained on the Systematic
Review Toolbox website. We identified 11 tools with relevant functionalities and discuss the important features of these tools with respect to different steps of the living review workflow. Four tools (NestedKnowledge, SWIFT-ActiveScreener, DistillerSR, EPPI-Reviewer) covered multiple, successive steps of the review process, and the remaining tools addressed specific components of the workflow, including scoping and protocol formulation, reference retrieval, automated data extraction, write-up and dissemination of data. We identify several ways in which living reviews can be made more efficient and practical. Most of these focus on general workflow management, or automation through artificial intelligence and machine-learning, in the screening process. More sophisticated uses of automation mostly target living rapid reviews to increase the speed of production or evidence maps to broaden the scope of the map. We use a case study to highlight some of the barriers and challenges to incorporating tools into the living review workflow and processes. These include increased workload, the need for organisation, ensuring timely dissemination and challenges related to the development of bespoke automation tools to facilitate the review process. We describe how current end-user tools address these challenges, and which knowledge gaps remain that could be addressed by future tool development. Dedicated web presences for automatic dissemination of in-progress evidence updates, rather than solely relying on peer-reviewed journal publications, help to make the effort of a living evidence synthesis worthwhile. Despite offering basic living
review functionalities, existing end-user tools could be further developed to be interoperable with other tools to support multiple workflow steps seamlessly, to address broader automatic evidence retrieval from a larger variety of sources, and to improve dissemination of evidence between review updates.