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 = 24), 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.

Amsterdam UMC University of Amsterdam Medical Library Amsterdam Public Health Amsterdam the Netherlands

Cochrane Austria Department for Evidence Based Medicine and Clinical Epidemiology University for Continuing Education Krems Krems an der Donau Austria

Cochrane Netherlands Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care University Medical Center Utrecht Utrecht University Utrecht the Netherlands

Czech National Centre for Evidence Based Healthcare and Knowledge Translation Institute of Biostatistics and Analyses Faculty of Medicine Masaryk University Brno Czech Republic

Department of Health Policy and Management Guilford Glazer Faculty of Business and Management and Faculty of Health Sciences Ben Gurion University of the Negev Beer Sheva Israel

Department of Health Sciences Faculty of Medicine Masaryk University Brno Czech Republic

Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences University of Bologna Bologna Italy

Department of Pathology Faculty of Medicine and Surgery University of Malta Msida Malta

Institute of Health Policy Management and Evaluation Dalla Lana School Of Public Health University of Toronto Toronto Canada

Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care University Medical Center Utrecht Utrecht University Utrecht the Netherlands

Knowledge Institute of Federation of Medical Specialists Utrecht The Netherlands

Laboratory of Hygiene and Environmental Protection Department of Medicine Democritus University of Thrace Alexandroupolis Greece

McMaster Health Forum McMaster University Hamilton Canada

National Institute for Health Services Management Bucharest Romania

Red de Nutrición Basada en La Evidencia Academia Española de Nutrición y Dietética Pamplona Spain

RTI International Center for Public Health Methods Research Triangle Park Durham NC USA

School for Public Health and Primary Care Maastricht University Maastricht the Netherlands

Section of Hygiene University Department of Life Sciences and Public Health Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore Rome Italy

Spiru Haret University Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences Bucharest Romania

Techné Research Group Department of Knowledge Engineering of the Faculty of Science University of Granada Granada Spain

University of Aveiro Campus Universitário de Santiago Aveiro Portugal

Witten Herdecke University Institute for Research in Operative Medicine Cologne Germany

Zenica Cantonal Hospital Department for Clinical Pharmacology Zenica Bosnia and Herzegovina

References provided by Crossref.org