A survey on current use of software tools for systematic literature reviews
Open accessAbstract
Adoption of the EU Medical Devices Regulations and In Vitro Diagnostics Regulations has led to increased demand for systematic literature reviews. This article reports on a survey investigating the current use of software platforms and tools by regulatory medical writers and others involved in conducting systematic literature reviews. The survey was completed by 125 respondents from 31 countries, evenly spread across different levels of experience. Most respondents use a partially automated (35%) or fully manual process (59%). Familiarity with specific software to conduct systematic literature reviews was low, with most respondents (61%–84%) indicating they were unfamiliar with five software applications and tools. Data extraction was named as both the most time-consuming and error-prone step in the process. Process improvement, improvement of data extraction, and time saving were seen as topics where systematic literature review software could make the most valuable contribution.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
0 of 2 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged
- Findingown data
Microsoft Office tools are the most frequently used software packages in every category in which they are represented.
“Microsoft Office tools are the most frequently used software packages in every category in which they are represented, and Acrobat is dominant for PDF handling.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
Process improvement, improvement of data extraction, and time saving were the most valuable topics addressed by systematic literature review software, according to respondents.
“Process improvement, improvement of data extraction, and time saving were seen as topics where systematic literature review software could make the most valuable contribution.”
- Also stated in: § Other software packages · plain
“Process improvement, improvement of data extraction, and time saving were the most valuable topics addressed by systematic literature review software, according to respondents (Figure 4).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Also stated in: § Other software packages · plain
- Findingown data
The total number of software tools used was significantly lower for respondents who did not use a manual process or used a SaaS package for conducting literature reviews (Kruskal-Wallis P=0.03).
“The total number of software tools used was significantly lower for respondents who did not use a manual process or used a SaaS package for conducting literature reviews (Kruskal-Wallis P=0.03), whereas respondents with custom/self-made applications reported using a higher number of database applications (P=0.009).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
Acrobat is dominant for PDF handling among respondents.
“Microsoft Office tools are the most frequently used software packages in every category in which they are represented, and Acrobat is dominant for PDF handling.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
Spreadsheets are used by 86.9% of respondents.
“Word processing software is used by 89.4% of respondents, spreadsheets by 86.9%, reference management software by 73.2%, PDF handling software by 79.9%, graphical software by 61%, and database software by 18.3%.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
- Findingown data
Respondents used a median of 5 (IQR 4-7, range 0-15) other, general purpose software packages.
“Respondents used a median of 5 (interquartile [IQR] 4-7, range 0-15) other, general purpose software packages.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
On average, 4.6% of respondents were currently using one of the dedicated literature review software tools in the survey.
“On average, 4.6% of respondents were currently using one of the software tools in the survey; these software tools had been used in the past by 3.4% of respondents, 2.2% were planning to use them in the near future, 12.7% were aware of their existence, and 77.1% of respondents were unfamiliar with them.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Time estimates averaged 84.8 hours (SD 71.2, IQR 37.5-105.0) for new literature reviews.
“Time estimates averaged 84.8 hours (SD 71.2, IQR 37.5-105.0)for new literature reviews and 45.9 hours (SD 70.4,IQR 13.75-50) for updates of literature reviews.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
Respondents with custom/self-made applications reported using a higher number of database applications (P=0.009).
“The total number of software tools used was significantly lower for respondents who did not use a manual process or used a SaaS package for conducting literature reviews (Kruskal-Wallis P=0.03), whereas respondents with custom/self-made applications reported using a higher number of database applications (P=0.009).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
59% of respondents conduct systematic literature reviews using a fully manual process without specific software or tools.
“Only 6% of respondents conduct systematic literature reviews using an automated process, whereas 35% use a partially automated process and 59% use a fully manual process without specific software or tools for conducting literature reviews (Figure 2).”
- Also stated in: § Conclusion · plain
“The majority of respondents (59%) conduct systematic literature reviews manually, without the aid of dedicated software packages”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Also stated in: § Conclusion · plain
- Findingown data
Data extraction in duplicate was reported by 27.8% of respondents.
“Screening in duplicate was reported by 38.1%, appraisal in duplicate by 37.1%, and data extraction in duplicate by 27.8% of respondents.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
Word processing software is used by 89.4% of respondents.
“Word processing software is used by 89.4% of respondents, spreadsheets by 86.9%, reference management software by 73.2%, PDF handling software by 79.9%, graphical software by 61%, and database software by 18.3%.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
On average, 2.2% of respondents were planning to use one of the dedicated literature review software tools in the near future.
“On average, 4.6% of respondents were currently using one of the software tools in the survey; these software tools had been used in the past by 3.4% of respondents, 2.2% were planning to use them in the near future, 12.7% were aware of their existence, and 77.1% of respondents were unfamiliar with them.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
Among respondents who use specific software tools for at least part of the literature review process, 37.5% use a software-as-a-service (SaaS) platform.
“Of the respondents who use specific software tools for at least part of the literature review process (n=40, 32%), 19 (47.5%) use a commercially available desktop or self-hosted software package, 15 (37.5%) use a software-as-a-service (SaaS) platform, whereas 6 (15.0%) use a custom or self-created tool or application.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
Data extraction, screening, and data analysis were indicated as the three most important aspects where the use of software tools could most help to reduce the error rate and improve traceability of literature review results.
“Data extraction, screening, and data analysis were indicated as the three most important aspects where the use of software tools could most help to reduce the error rate and improve traceability of literature review results.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Database software is used by 18.3% of respondents.
“Word processing software is used by 89.4% of respondents, spreadsheets by 86.9%, reference management software by 73.2%, PDF handling software by 79.9%, graphical software by 61%, and database software by 18.3%.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
Among respondents who use specific software tools for at least part of the literature review process, 15.0% use a custom or self-created tool or application.
“Of the respondents who use specific software tools for at least part of the literature review process (n=40, 32%), 19 (47.5%) use a commercially available desktop or self-hosted software package, 15 (37.5%) use a software-as-a-service (SaaS) platform, whereas 6 (15.0%) use a custom or self-created tool or application.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
Screening in duplicate was reported by 38.1% of respondents.
“Screening in duplicate was reported by 38.1%, appraisal in duplicate by 37.1%, and data extraction in duplicate by 27.8% of respondents.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
Time estimates averaged 45.9 hours (SD 70.4, IQR 13.75-50) for updates of literature reviews.
“Time estimates averaged 84.8 hours (SD 71.2, IQR 37.5-105.0)for new literature reviews and 45.9 hours (SD 70.4,IQR 13.75-50) for updates of literature reviews.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
Appraisal in duplicate was reported by 37.1% of respondents.
“Screening in duplicate was reported by 38.1%, appraisal in duplicate by 37.1%, and data extraction in duplicate by 27.8% of respondents.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
35% of respondents use a partially automated process for systematic literature reviews.
“Only 6% of respondents conduct systematic literature reviews using an automated process, whereas 35% use a partially automated process and 59% use a fully manual process without specific software or tools for conducting literature reviews (Figure 2).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
For the five queried dedicated literature review software tools, 61% to 84% of respondents were unfamiliar with each.
“Familiarity with specific software to conduct systematic literature reviews was low, with most respondents (61%-84%) indicating they were unfamiliar with five software applications and tools.”
- Also stated in: § Conclusion · plain
“most (61%-84%) are unfamiliar with the literature review tools queried in the survey.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Also stated in: § Conclusion · plain
- Findingown data
Among respondents who use specific software tools for at least part of the literature review process (n=40, 32%), 47.5% use a commercially available desktop or self-hosted software package.
“Of the respondents who use specific software tools for at least part of the literature review process (n=40, 32%), 19 (47.5%) use a commercially available desktop or self-hosted software package, 15 (37.5%) use a software-as-a-service (SaaS) platform, whereas 6 (15.0%) use a custom or self-created tool or application.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
Reference management software is used by 73.2% of respondents.
“Word processing software is used by 89.4% of respondents, spreadsheets by 86.9%, reference management software by 73.2%, PDF handling software by 79.9%, graphical software by 61%, and database software by 18.3%.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
The number of hours spent on either new or updated literature reviews did not differ significantly by employment type, role, or level of experience.
“The number of hours spent on either new or updated literature reviews did not differ significantly by employment type, role, or level of experience.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
PDF handling software is used by 79.9% of respondents.
“Word processing software is used by 89.4% of respondents, spreadsheets by 86.9%, reference management software by 73.2%, PDF handling software by 79.9%, graphical software by 61%, and database software by 18.3%.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
On average, 3.4% of respondents had used one of the dedicated literature review software tools in the past.
“On average, 4.6% of respondents were currently using one of the software tools in the survey; these software tools had been used in the past by 3.4% of respondents, 2.2% were planning to use them in the near future, 12.7% were aware of their existence, and 77.1% of respondents were unfamiliar with them.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
Graphical software is used by 61% of respondents.
“Word processing software is used by 89.4% of respondents, spreadsheets by 86.9%, reference management software by 73.2%, PDF handling software by 79.9%, graphical software by 61%, and database software by 18.3%.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
On average, 77.1% of respondents were unfamiliar with the dedicated literature review software tools.
“On average, 4.6% of respondents were currently using one of the software tools in the survey; these software tools had been used in the past by 3.4% of respondents, 2.2% were planning to use them in the near future, 12.7% were aware of their existence, and 77.1% of respondents were unfamiliar with them.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
6% of respondents conduct systematic literature reviews using an automated process.
“Only 6% of respondents conduct systematic literature reviews using an automated process, whereas 35% use a partially automated process and 59% use a fully manual process without specific software or tools for conducting literature reviews (Figure 2).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
On average, 12.7% of respondents were aware of the existence of one of the dedicated literature review software tools.
“On average, 4.6% of respondents were currently using one of the software tools in the survey; these software tools had been used in the past by 3.4% of respondents, 2.2% were planning to use them in the near future, 12.7% were aware of their existence, and 77.1% of respondents were unfamiliar with them.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Study design and conductown data
The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test indicated that numerical variables were not normally distributed.
“The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test indicated that numerical variables were not normally distributed.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Study design and conductnone given
The question on the estimated time needed for conducting a systematic literature review did not include a standard volume of retrieved literature, causing several respondents not to provide a valid numerical estimate.
“The question on the estimated time needed for conducting a systematic literature review did not include a standard volume of retrieved literature, causing several respondents not to provide a valid numerical estimate.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Premisereasoning
The adoption of EU MDR and IVDR has greatly increased the demand for systematic literature reviews.
“Adoption of the EU Medical Devices Regulations and In Vitro DiagnosticsRegulations has led to increased demand for systematic literature reviews.”
- Also stated in: § Abstract · boosted
“The adoption of EU MDR and IVDR has greatly increased the demand for systematic literature reviews.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked- cites [1] 1. Regulation (EU) 2017/745 of the European Parliament and of the Council of April 5, 2017, on medical devices, amending Directive 2001/83/EC, Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 and Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 and repealing Council Directives 90/385/EEC and 93/42/EEC. OJEU. 2017;60(L117):1-175.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- cites [2] 2. Regulation (EU) 2017/746 of the European Parliament and of the Council of April 5, 2017, on in vitro diagnostic medical devices and repealing Directive 98/79/EC and Commission Decision 2010/227/EU. OJEU. 2017;60(L117):176-332.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Also stated in: § Abstract · boosted
- May combine two claims. 7
- Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 10
May combine two claims.
Findingown dataData extraction was reported as both the most time-consuming and error-prone step of the literature review process.
“Data extraction was named as both the most time-consuming and errorprone step in the process.”
- Also stated in: § Other software packages · plain
“Data extraction was reported as both the most time-consuming and error-prone step of the literature review process.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Also stated in: § Other software packages · plain
May combine two claims.
Findingown dataThe main challenges perceived by respondents in conducting systematic literature reviews included getting full texts of included articles and meeting client/employer expectations while maintaining quality.
“Responses in the”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Findingown dataMedboard and Polarion were named as additional software packages by one respondent each.
“Medboard and Polarion were named as additional software packages by one respondent each via the”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataDistillerSR is the most widely used and known dedicated literature review software package among respondents.
“DistillerSR is the most widely used and known package.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Findingown dataRespondents were evenly spread across different levels of experience.
“The survey was completed by 125 respondents from 31 countries, evenly spread across different levels of experience.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Findingown dataA valid numerical time estimate for conducting new or updated literature reviews was provided by 78 respondents.
“A valid numerical time estimate for conducting new or updated literature reviews was provided by 78 respondents.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataTime estimates did not differ significantly according to the type of process used (manual, partially automated, or automated) for either new or updated literature reviews, but the difference neared significance for new literature reviews (P=0.072).
“Time estimates did not differ significantly according to the type of process used (manual, partially automated, or automated) for either new or updated literature reviews, but the difference neared significance for new literature reviews (P=0.072)(Figure 2).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataThe survey was completed by 125 respondents from 31 countries.
“The survey was completed by 125 respondents from 31 countries, evenly spread across different levels of experience.”
- Also stated in: § Characteristics of survey respondents · plain
“The survey was completed by 125 respondents (Figure 1) from 31 different countries”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Also stated in: § Characteristics of survey respondents · plain
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Study design and conductreasoningQuestions on specific features respondents require or look for in systematic literature software packages were not included.
“Questions on specific features resp ondents require or look for in systematic literature software packages were not included either.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Study design and conductnone givenA data cleaning process removed obviously inconsistent or irrelevant responses.
“A data cleaning process removed obviously inconsistent or irrelevant responses, and additional categorical variables were created for free text responses.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Study design and conductnone givenIt is impossible to query missing or inconsistent results.
“It is hard to estimate how representative the respondent population is and impossible to query missing or inconsistent results.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
Study design and conductnone givenThe survey tool allowed submission of incomplete responses, but querying of missing or inconsistent responses was not possible.
“The survey tool allows sub mission of incomplete responses, but query ing of missing or inconsistent responses was not possible.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
Study design and conductnone givenThe SurveyMonkey tool used to distribute the survey prevents a respondent taking the survey more than once from the same device, but it cannot check whether the same respondent filled out the survey from multiple devices.
“Although the SurveyMonkey tool used to distribute the survey prevents a respondent taking the survey more than once from the same device, it cannot check whether the same respondent filled out the survey from multiple devices.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Study design and conductreasoningThe survey did not question the motivation or reason for using or not using certain systems.
“As the objective of the study was to investigate current practices and familiarity with existing software tools, the survey did not question the motivation or reason for using or not using certain systems.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Study design and conductreasoningIt is hard to estimate how representative the respondent population is.
“It is hard to estimate how representative the respondent population is and impossible to query missing or inconsistent results.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
The paper relies on this without support.
The workload of regulatory writers in the medical devices and in vitro diagnostics industries is soaring due to ever-increasing volumes of literature published each year.
“In combination with the ever-increasing volumes of literature published each year, the workload of regulatory writers in the medical devices and in vitro diagnostics industries is soaring.”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Listed country counts do not total 69
MinorThe six listed country counts add to 62 respondents, not 69. They therefore account for 49.6% of the 125 respondents, rather than the stated 55.2%.
Reported 69 · recomputed 62
“respondents from Germany (n=22, 17.6%), France (n=9, 7.2%), Belgium (n=9, 7.2%), United States (n=8, 6.4%), the UK (n=7, 5.6%), and Canada (n=7, 5.6%) accounting for more than half (n= 69, 55.2%) of the responses.”
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Prasetya, A., Maryadi, M., & Hutahayan, B. (2026) · Cogent Business & Management · doi:10.1080/23311975.2026.2676342
- Authors
- Persy, V.
- Corresponding author
- Persy, Veerle
- ORCID
- Persy, Veerle
- Venue
- Medical Writing
- Publisher
- European Medical Writers Association
- Published
- 2023-09-22
- Pages
- 48-54
- ISSN
- 2047-4806 (ISSN-L)
- 2047-4814
- OpenAlex
- W4387124215
- Cited by
- 2
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2023: 1
- FWCI
- 0.14
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Medical Writing (publishedVersion)
- 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
- Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Pharmacology › Pharmaceutical industry and healthcare
- Keywords
- systematic reviews, software tools, medical device regulation, data extraction, software adoption, process improvement, time savings
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.
Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-10.
Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-10.
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
