An exploration of available methods and tools to improve the efficiency of systematic review production - a scoping review
Authors: Affengruber Lisa , Maten Miriam M. van der , Spiero Isa , Nussbaumer-Streit Barbara , Mahmić-Kaknjo Mersiha , Ellen Moriah E. , Goossen Käthe , Kantorova Lucia , Hooft Lotty , Riva Nicoletta , Poulentzas Georgios , Lalagkas Panagiotis Nikolaos , Silva Anabela G. , Sassano Michele , Sfetcu Raluca , Marqués María E. , Friessova Tereza , Baladia Eduard , Pezzullo Angelo Maria , Martinez Patricia , Gartlehner Gerald , Spijker René 
Published: July 2024

Background
Systematic reviews (SRs) are time-consuming and labor-intensive to perform. With the growing number of scientific publications, the SR development process becomes even more laborious. This is problematic because timely SR evidence is essential for decision-making in evidence-based healthcare and policymaking. Numerous methods and tools that accelerate SR development have recently emerged. To date, no scoping review has been conducted to provide a comprehensive summary of methods and ready-to-use tools to improve efficiency in SR production.
Objective
To present an overview of primary studies that evaluated the use of ready-to-use applications of tools or review methods to improve efficiency in the review process.
Methods
We conducted a scoping review. An information specialist performed a systematic literature search in four databases, supplemented with citation-based and grey literature searching. We included studies reporting the performance of methods and ready-to-use tools for improving efficiency when producing or updating a SR in the health field. We performed dual, independent title and abstract screening, full-text selection, and data extraction. The results were analyzed descriptively and presented narratively.
Results
We included 103 studies: 51 studies reported on methods, 54 studies on tools, and 2 studies reported on both methods and tools to make SR production more efficient. A total of 72 studies evaluated the validity (n = 69) or usability (n = 3) of one method (n = 33) or tool (n = 39), and 31 studies performed comparative analyses of different methods (n = 15) or tools (n = 16). 20 studies conducted prospective evaluations in real-time workflows. Most studies evaluated methods or tools that aimed at screening titles and abstracts (n = 42) and literature searching (n = 24), while for other steps of the SR process, only a few studies were found. Regarding the outcomes included, most studies reported on validity outcomes (n = 84), while outcomes such as impact on results (n = 23), time-saving (n = 26), usability (n = 13), and cost-saving (n = 3) were less often evaluated.
Conclusion
For title and abstract screening and literature searching, various evaluated methods and tools are available that aim at improving the efficiency of SR production. However, only few studies have addressed the influence of these methods and tools in real-world workflows. Few studies exist that evaluate methods or tools supporting the remaining tasks. Additionally, while validity outcomes are frequently reported, there is a lack of evaluation regarding other outcomes.