CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 977Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsSoftware Engineering Techniques and PracticesClinical practice guidelines implementation

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 17 of the 17 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The development of software to support multiple systematic review types: the Joanna Briggs Institute System for the Unified Management, Assessment and Review of Information (JBI SUMARI)

Munn, Zachary, Aromataris, Edoardo, Tufanaru, Catalin, Stern, Cindy, Porritt, Kylie, Farrow, James, Lockwood, Craig, Stephenson, Matthew, Moola, Sandeep, Lizarondo, Lucylynn, McArthur, Alexandra, Peters, Micah, Pearson, Alan, Jordan, Zoe·2019·International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare
DOI 10.1097/xeb.0000000000000152
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

AIM: Systematic reviews play an important role in ensuring trustworthy recommendations in healthcare. However, systematic reviews can be laborious to undertake and as such software has been developed to assist in the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews. The Joanna Briggs Institute and its collaborating centres consist of thousands of researchers, academics and clinicians across the globe conducting systematic reviews of various types. To support them in their work, modern software and online tools are required. Our aim was to develop a software program to support systematic reviewers across the globe. METHODS: A working party was formed with extensive consultation with members of the Joanna Briggs Collaboration focusing on ideal features of a software program to support systematic reviews. The new systematic review software was built using an agile methodology and designed to be a modern web application. RESULTS: The new systematic review software, the Joanna Briggs Institute System for the Unified Management, Assessment and Review of Information (JBI SUMARI), was successfully developed through an iterative process of development, feedback, testing and review. The software is now available (https://www.jbisumari.org/) and supports the entire systematic review process for different types of systematic reviews. CONCLUSIONS: An agile software development approach combined with wide consultation and user testing can facilitate systematic review software design and development. This new software can support systematic reviews and guideline developers to create systematic reviews for a diverse range of questions.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/xeb.0000000000000152

Cites

17 of 17 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Citations

Cites

Show all 17 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 601–700 of 977

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Munn, Z., Aromataris, E., Tufanaru, C., Stern, C., Porritt, K., Farrow, J., Lockwood, C., Stephenson, M., Moola, S., Lizarondo, L., McArthur, A., Peters, M., Pearson, A., & Jordan, Z.
Affiliations
The University of Adelaide (AU)
Corresponding author
Munn, Zachary
ORCID
Venue
International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare
Publisher
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Published
2019-03
Volume
17
Issue
1
Pages
36-43
ISSN
  • 1744-1595 (ISSN-L)
  • 1744-1609
DOI
10.1097/xeb.0000000000000152
OpenAlex
W2892590175
Cited by
977
References
17
Citations by year
2026: 142 · 2025: 197 · 2024: 190 · 2023: 141 · 2022: 132 · 2021: 112 · 2020: 53 · 2019: 7
FWCI
8.59
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Adelaide Research & Scholarship (AR&S) (University of Adelaide) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Techniques and Practices
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
Keywords
systematic review software, Joanna Briggs Institute, web application, agile software development, user testing, software design, guideline development, health care recommendations
MeSH terms
Systematic Reviews as Topic, Software

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review