Software Tools for Literature Screening in Systematic Reviews in Biomedical Research
Open accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
- gold
- doi.org
- 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