Cited by 99Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsscientometrics and bibliometrics researchResearch Data Management Practices

Software Tools for Literature Screening in Systematic Reviews in Biomedical Research

Open access
van der Mierden, Stevie·2019·ALTEX

Abstract

Systematic Reviews (SRs) hold promise for implementing the 3Rs in animal sciences: they can retrieve available alternative models, help refining experiments, and identify insufficiencies, or an excess of, scientific knowledge on a particular topic. Unfortunately, SRs can be labour- and time-intensive, especially the reference screening and data extraction phases. Fortunately, there are several software tools available that help make screening faster and easier. However, it is not always clear which features the tools offer. Therefore, a feature analysis was performed to compare different reference screening tools as objectively as possible. This analysis enables researchers to select the most appropriate tool for their needs. Fifteen different tools were compared: CADIMA, Covidence, DistillerSR, Endnote, Endnote using Bramer's method, EROS, HAWC, Microsoft Excel, Excel using VonVille's method, Microsoft Word, Rayyan, RevMan, SyRF, SysRev.com, and SWIFT Active Screener. Their support of 21 features was tested. Features were categorised as mandatory, desirable, and optional. DistillerSR, Covidence, and SWIFT Active Screener are the tools that support all mandatory features. These tools are preferred for screening references, but none of them are free. The best scoring free tool is Rayyan, which lacks one mandatory function: distinct title/abstract and full-text phases. The lowest scoring tools are those not specifically designed for SRs, like Microsoft Word and Endnote. Their use can only be advised for small and simple SRs. A well-informed selection of SR screening tools will benefit review quality and speed, which can contribute to the advancement of the 3Rs in animal studies.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.14573/altex.1902131

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Numerous software have been developed to help reviewers manage the literature base and perform one or more phases of a SER, such as citation management or title and abstract screening.

    “Numerous software have been developed to help reviewers manage the literature base and perform one or more phases of a SER, such as citation management or title and abstract screening (van der Mierden et al., 2019).”

    From Sysrev: A FAIR Platform for Data Curation and Systematic Evidence Review (2021) · cites this paper as van der Mierden et al., 2019

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 21 · Cited by 99

Authors
van der Mierden, S.
Venue
ALTEX
Publisher
ALTEX Edition
Published
2019
Volume
36
Issue
3
Pages
508-517
ISSN
  • 0946-7785 (ISSN-L)
  • 1868-596X
OpenAlex
W2944828379
Cited by
99
References
21
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 7
FWCI
1.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • ALTEX (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
  • Medizinischen Hochschule Hannover
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › scientometrics and bibliometrics research
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Research Data Management Practices
Keywords
systematic reviews, literature screening, alternatives to animal testing, Rayyan, Covidence, EndNote, data extraction, software selection
MeSH terms
Systematic Reviews as Topic, Animals, Animal Testing Alternatives, Humans, Publications, Software, Biomedical Research

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