Resource use during systematic review production varies widely: a scoping review

B Nussbaumer-Streit; M Ellen; I Klerings; R Sfetcu; N Riva; M Mahmić-Kaknjo; G Poulentzas; P Martinez; E Baladia; L E Ziganshina; M E Marqués; L Aguilar; A P Kassianos; G Frampton; A G Silva; L Affengruber; R Spjker; J Thomas; R C Berg; M Kontogiani; M Sousa; C Kontogiorgis; G Gartlehner; Working group 3 in the EVBRES COST Action

doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.05.019

Resource use during systematic review production varies widely: a scoping review

B Nussbaumer-Streit^*, M Ellen, I Klerings, R Sfetcu, N Riva, M Mahmić-Kaknjo, G Poulentzas, P Martinez, E Baladia, L E Ziganshina, M E Marqués, L Aguilar, A P Kassianos, G Frampton, A G Silva, L Affengruber, R Spjker, J Thomas, R C Berg, M KontogianiM Sousa, C Kontogiorgis, G Gartlehner, Working group 3 in the EVBRES COST Action

^*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journal › (Systematic) Review article › peer-review

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to map the resource use during systematic review (SR) production and reasons why steps of the SR production are resource intensive to discover where the largest gain in improving efficiency might be possible.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We conducted a scoping review. An information specialist searched multiple databases (e.g., Ovid MEDLINE, Scopus) and implemented citation-based and grey literature searching. We employed dual and independent screenings of records at the title/abstract and full-text levels and data extraction.

RESULTS: We included 34 studies. Thirty-two reported on the resource use-mostly time; four described reasons why steps of the review process are resource intensive. Study selection, data extraction, and critical appraisal seem to be very resource intensive, while protocol development, literature search, or study retrieval take less time. Project management and administration required a large proportion of SR production time. Lack of experience, domain knowledge, use of collaborative and SR-tailored software, and good communication and management can be reasons why SR steps are resource intensive.

CONCLUSION: Resource use during SR production varies widely. Areas with the largest resource use are administration and project management, study selection, data extraction, and critical appraisal of studies.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	287-296
Number of pages	10
Journal	Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Volume	139
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.05.019
Publication status	Published - Nov 2021

Keywords

Biomedical Research/standards
Data Collection/methods
Humans
Research Design
Research Report/standards
Systematic Reviews as Topic/methods
Costs
BIAS
RISK
Time
RELIABILITY
Personnel
TIME SPENT
Evidence synthesis
SEARCH STRATEGIES
Efficient
Resources
CONDUCT
TOOLS

Access to Document

10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.05.019Licence: Unspecified

Cite this

Nussbaumer-Streit, B., Ellen, M., Klerings, I., Sfetcu, R., Riva, N., Mahmić-Kaknjo, M., Poulentzas, G., Martinez, P., Baladia, E., Ziganshina, L. E., Marqués, M. E., Aguilar, L., Kassianos, A. P., Frampton, G., Silva, A. G., Affengruber, L., Spjker, R., Thomas, J., Berg, R. C., ... Working group 3 in the EVBRES COST Action (2021). Resource use during systematic review production varies widely: a scoping review. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 139, 287-296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.05.019

@article{a199d7ea9de14529a15132388612054c,

title = "Resource use during systematic review production varies widely: a scoping review",

abstract = "OBJECTIVE: We aimed to map the resource use during systematic review (SR) production and reasons why steps of the SR production are resource intensive to discover where the largest gain in improving efficiency might be possible.STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We conducted a scoping review. An information specialist searched multiple databases (e.g., Ovid MEDLINE, Scopus) and implemented citation-based and grey literature searching. We employed dual and independent screenings of records at the title/abstract and full-text levels and data extraction.RESULTS: We included 34 studies. Thirty-two reported on the resource use-mostly time; four described reasons why steps of the review process are resource intensive. Study selection, data extraction, and critical appraisal seem to be very resource intensive, while protocol development, literature search, or study retrieval take less time. Project management and administration required a large proportion of SR production time. Lack of experience, domain knowledge, use of collaborative and SR-tailored software, and good communication and management can be reasons why SR steps are resource intensive.CONCLUSION: Resource use during SR production varies widely. Areas with the largest resource use are administration and project management, study selection, data extraction, and critical appraisal of studies.",

keywords = "Biomedical Research/standards, Data Collection/methods, Humans, Research Design, Research Report/standards, Systematic Reviews as Topic/methods, Costs, BIAS, RISK, Time, RELIABILITY, Personnel, TIME SPENT, Evidence synthesis, SEARCH STRATEGIES, Efficient, Resources, CONDUCT, TOOLS",

author = "B Nussbaumer-Streit and M Ellen and I Klerings and R Sfetcu and N Riva and M Mahmi{\'c}-Kaknjo and G Poulentzas and P Martinez and E Baladia and Ziganshina, {L E} and Marqu{\'e}s, {M E} and L Aguilar and Kassianos, {A P} and G Frampton and Silva, {A G} and L Affengruber and R Spjker and J Thomas and Berg, {R C} and M Kontogiani and M Sousa and C Kontogiorgis and G Gartlehner and {Working group 3 in the EVBRES COST Action}",

year = "2021",

month = nov,

doi = "10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.05.019",

language = "English",

volume = "139",

pages = "287--296",

journal = "Journal of Clinical Epidemiology",

issn = "0895-4356",

publisher = "Elsevier Science",

}

Nussbaumer-Streit, B, Ellen, M, Klerings, I, Sfetcu, R, Riva, N, Mahmić-Kaknjo, M, Poulentzas, G, Martinez, P, Baladia, E, Ziganshina, LE, Marqués, ME, Aguilar, L, Kassianos, AP, Frampton, G, Silva, AG, Affengruber, L, Spjker, R, Thomas, J, Berg, RC, Kontogiani, M, Sousa, M, Kontogiorgis, C, Gartlehner, G & Working group 3 in the EVBRES COST Action 2021, 'Resource use during systematic review production varies widely: a scoping review', Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, vol. 139, pp. 287-296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.05.019

TY - JOUR

T1 - Resource use during systematic review production varies widely

T2 - a scoping review

AU - Nussbaumer-Streit, B

AU - Ellen, M

AU - Klerings, I

AU - Sfetcu, R

AU - Riva, N

AU - Mahmić-Kaknjo, M

AU - Poulentzas, G

AU - Martinez, P

AU - Baladia, E

AU - Ziganshina, L E

AU - Marqués, M E

AU - Aguilar, L

AU - Kassianos, A P

AU - Frampton, G

AU - Silva, A G

AU - Affengruber, L

AU - Spjker, R

AU - Thomas, J

AU - Berg, R C

AU - Kontogiani, M

AU - Sousa, M

AU - Kontogiorgis, C

AU - Gartlehner, G

AU - Working group 3 in the EVBRES COST Action

PY - 2021/11

Y1 - 2021/11

N2 - OBJECTIVE: We aimed to map the resource use during systematic review (SR) production and reasons why steps of the SR production are resource intensive to discover where the largest gain in improving efficiency might be possible.STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We conducted a scoping review. An information specialist searched multiple databases (e.g., Ovid MEDLINE, Scopus) and implemented citation-based and grey literature searching. We employed dual and independent screenings of records at the title/abstract and full-text levels and data extraction.RESULTS: We included 34 studies. Thirty-two reported on the resource use-mostly time; four described reasons why steps of the review process are resource intensive. Study selection, data extraction, and critical appraisal seem to be very resource intensive, while protocol development, literature search, or study retrieval take less time. Project management and administration required a large proportion of SR production time. Lack of experience, domain knowledge, use of collaborative and SR-tailored software, and good communication and management can be reasons why SR steps are resource intensive.CONCLUSION: Resource use during SR production varies widely. Areas with the largest resource use are administration and project management, study selection, data extraction, and critical appraisal of studies.

AB - OBJECTIVE: We aimed to map the resource use during systematic review (SR) production and reasons why steps of the SR production are resource intensive to discover where the largest gain in improving efficiency might be possible.STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We conducted a scoping review. An information specialist searched multiple databases (e.g., Ovid MEDLINE, Scopus) and implemented citation-based and grey literature searching. We employed dual and independent screenings of records at the title/abstract and full-text levels and data extraction.RESULTS: We included 34 studies. Thirty-two reported on the resource use-mostly time; four described reasons why steps of the review process are resource intensive. Study selection, data extraction, and critical appraisal seem to be very resource intensive, while protocol development, literature search, or study retrieval take less time. Project management and administration required a large proportion of SR production time. Lack of experience, domain knowledge, use of collaborative and SR-tailored software, and good communication and management can be reasons why SR steps are resource intensive.CONCLUSION: Resource use during SR production varies widely. Areas with the largest resource use are administration and project management, study selection, data extraction, and critical appraisal of studies.

KW - Biomedical Research/standards

KW - Data Collection/methods

KW - Humans

KW - Research Design

KW - Research Report/standards

KW - Systematic Reviews as Topic/methods

KW - Costs

KW - BIAS

KW - RISK

KW - Time

KW - RELIABILITY

KW - Personnel

KW - TIME SPENT

KW - Evidence synthesis

KW - SEARCH STRATEGIES

KW - Efficient

KW - Resources

KW - CONDUCT

KW - TOOLS

U2 - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.05.019

DO - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.05.019

M3 - (Systematic) Review article

C2 - 34091021

SN - 0895-4356

VL - 139

SP - 287

EP - 296

JO - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

JF - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

ER -

Resource use during systematic review production varies widely: a scoping review

Abstract

Keywords

Access to Document

Fingerprint

Cite this