Sackett DL, Rosenberg WM, Gray JA, Haynes RB, Richardson WS. Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn’t. BMJ (Clinical Research Ed). 1996;312(7023):71–2.
Article
CAS
Google Scholar
Leach MJ. Evidence-based practice: a framework for clinical practice and research design. Int J Nurs Pract. 2006;12(5):248–51.
Article
Google Scholar
Marchevsky AM, Wick MR. Evidence-based pathology: systematic literature reviews as the basis for guidelines and best practices. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2015;139(3):394–9.
Article
Google Scholar
Satterfield JM, Spring B, Brownson RC, Mullen EJ, Newhouse RP, Walker BB, et al. Toward a transdisciplinary model of evidence-based practice. Milbank Q. 2009;87(2):368–90.
Article
Google Scholar
Spring B. Evidence-based practice in clinical psychology: what it is, why it matters; what you need to know. J Clin Psychol. 2007;63(7):611–31.
Article
Google Scholar
Brownson RC, Fielding JE, Maylahn CM. Evidence-based public health: a fundamental concept for public health practice. Annu Rev Public Health. 2009;30(1):175–201.
Article
Google Scholar
Hill EK, Alpi KM, Auerbach M. Evidence-based practice in health education and promotion: a review and introduction to resources. Health Promot Pract. 2009;11(3):358–66.
Article
Google Scholar
Szajewska H. Evidence-based medicine and clinical research: both are needed neither is perfect. Ann Nutr Metab. 2018;72(Suppl 3):13–23.
Article
CAS
Google Scholar
Mulrow CD. Rationale for systematic reviews. BMJ. 1994;309(6954):597–9.
Article
CAS
Google Scholar
Gupta S, Rajiah P, Middlebrooks EH, Baruah D, Carter BW, Burton KR, et al. Systematic review of the literature: best practices. Acad Radiol. 2018;25(11):1481–90.
Article
Google Scholar
Gopalakrishnan S, Ganeshkumar P. systematic reviews and meta-analysis: understanding the best evidence in primary healthcare. J Family Med Prim Care. 2013;2(1):9–14.
Article
CAS
Google Scholar
Armstrong R, Hall BJ, Doyle J, Waters E. ‘Scoping the scope’ of a cochrane review. J Public Health. 2011;33(1):147–50.
Article
Google Scholar
Cook DJ, Mulrow CD, Haynes RB. Systematic reviews: synthesis of best evidence for clinical decisions. Ann Intern Med. 1997;126(5):376–80.
Article
CAS
Google Scholar
Rudnicka AR, Owen CG. An introduction to systematic reviews and meta-analyses in health care. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2012;32(3):174–83.
Article
Google Scholar
Weed DL. the need for systematic reviews in Oncology. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2018;110(8):812–4.
Article
Google Scholar
Damen JAAG, Hooft L. The increasing need for systematic reviews of prognosis studies: strategies to facilitate review production and improve quality of primary research. Diagn Prognostic Res. 2019;3(1):2.
Article
Google Scholar
Sofaer N, Strech D. The need for systematic reviews of reasons. Bioethics. 2012;26(6):315–28.
Article
Google Scholar
Ioannidis JPA. The mass production of redundant, misleading, and conflicted systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Milbank Q. 2016;94(3):485–514.
Article
Google Scholar
Bastian H, Glasziou P, Chalmers I. Seventy-five trials and eleven systematic reviews a day: how will we ever keep up? PLoS Med. 2010;7(9): e1000326.
Article
Google Scholar
Borah R, Brown AW, Capers PL, Kaiser KA. Analysis of the time and workers needed to conduct systematic reviews of medical interventions using data from the PROSPERO registry. BMJ Open. 2017;7(2): e012545.
Article
Google Scholar
Moher D, Tetzlaff J, Tricco AC, Sampson M, Altman DG. Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews. PLoS Med. 2007;4(3): e78.
Article
Google Scholar
Uttley L, Montgomery P. The influence of the team in conducting a systematic review. Syst Rev. 2017;6(1):149.
Article
Google Scholar
Tsafnat G, Dunn A, Glasziou P, Coiera E. The automation of systematic reviews. BMJ: British Medical Journal. 2013;346: f139.
Article
Google Scholar
Marshall C, Brereton P, Kitchenham B. Tools to support systematic reviews in software engineering: a cross-domain survey using semi-structured interviews. Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering; Nanjing, China: Association for Computing Machinery; 2015. p. Article 26.
van Altena AJ, Spijker R, Olabarriaga SD. Usage of automation tools in systematic reviews. Res Synth Methods. 2019;10(1):72–82.
Article
Google Scholar
Beller E, Clark J, Tsafnat G, Adams C, Diehl H, Lund H, et al. Making progress with the automation of systematic reviews: principles of the International Collaboration for the Automation of Systematic Reviews (ICASR). Syst Rev. 2018;7(1):77.
Article
Google Scholar
Rathbone J, Carter M, Hoffmann T, Glasziou P. Better duplicate detection for systematic reviewers: evaluation of systematic review assistant-deduplication module. Syst Rev. 2015;4(1):6.
Article
Google Scholar
Clark J, Glasziou P, Del Mar C, Bannach-Brown A, Stehlik P, Scott AM. A full systematic review was completed in 2 weeks using automation tools: a case study. J Clin Epidemiol. 2020;121:81–90.
Article
Google Scholar
Marshall IJ, Wallace BC. Toward systematic review automation: a practical guide to using machine learning tools in research synthesis. Syst Rev. 2019;8(1):163.
Article
Google Scholar
Rout BK, Sikdar BK. hazard identification, risk assessment, and control measures as an effective tool of occupational health assessment of hazardous process in an iron ore pelletizing industry. Indian J Occup Environ Med. 2017;21(2):56–76.
Article
CAS
Google Scholar
Marshall IJ, Kuiper J, Banner E, Wallace BC. Automating biomedical evidence synthesis: RobotReviewer. Proc Conf Assoc Comput Linguist Meet. 2017;2017:7–12.
Google Scholar
Marshall C, Brereton P, Kitchenham B. Tools to support systematic reviews in software engineering: a feature analysis. Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering; London, England, United Kingdom: Association for Computing Machinery; 2014. p. Article 13.
Harrison H, Griffin SJ, Kuhn I, Usher-Smith JA. Software tools to support title and abstract screening for systematic reviews in healthcare: an evaluation. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2020;20(1):7.
Article
Google Scholar
Nagtegaal ID, Odze RD, Klimstra D, Paradis V, Rugge M, Schirmacher P, et al. The 2019 WHO classification of tumours of the digestive system. Histopathology. 2020;76(2):182–8.
Article
Google Scholar
Tan PH, Ellis I, Allison K, Brogi E, Fox SB, Lakhani S, et al. The 2019 World Health Organization classification of tumours of the breast. Histopathology. 2020;77(2):181–5.
Article
Google Scholar
Wick MR, Marchevsky AM. Evidence-based principles in pathology: existing problem areas and the development of “quality” practice patterns. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2011;135(11):1398–404.
Article
Google Scholar
Cleo G, Scott AM, Islam F, Julien B, Beller E. Usability and acceptability of four systematic review automation software packages: a mixed method design. Syst Rev. 2019;8(1):145.
Article
Google Scholar
Gates A, Guitard S, Pillay J, Elliott SA, Dyson MP, Newton AS, et al. Performance and usability of machine learning for screening in systematic reviews: a comparative evaluation of three tools. Syst Rev. 2019;8(1):278.
Article
Google Scholar
Gates A, Johnson C, Hartling L. Technology-assisted title and abstract screening for systematic reviews: a retrospective evaluation of the Abstrackr machine learning tool. Syst Rev. 2018;7(1):45.
Article
Google Scholar
Kreimeyer K, Foster M, Pandey A, Arya N, Halford G, Jones SF, et al. Natural language processing systems for capturing and standardizing unstructured clinical information: a systematic review. J Biomed Inform. 2017;73:14–29.
Article
Google Scholar
Jaspers S, De Troyer E, Aerts M. Machine learning techniques for the automation of literature reviews and systematic reviews in EFSA. EFSA Supporting Publications. 2018;15(6):1427E.
Article
Google Scholar
Marshall C, Brereton P. Systematic review toolbox: a catalogue of tools to support systematic reviews. Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering. 2015.
Russell-Rose T, Shokraneh F. 63 2Dsearch: facilitating reproducible and valid searching in evidence synthesis. BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine. 2019;24(Suppl 1):A36.
Google Scholar
Westgate MJ. revtools: an R package to support article screening for evidence synthesis. Res Syn Meth. 2019;10(4):606–14.
Article
Google Scholar
Cheng SH, Augustin C, Bethel A, Gill D, Anzaroot S, Brun J, et al. Using machine learning to advance synthesis and use of conservation and environmental evidence. Conserv Biol. 2018;32(4):762–4.
Article
CAS
Google Scholar
Hamel C, Kelly SE, Thavorn K, Rice DB, Wells GA, Hutton B. An evaluation of DistillerSR’s machine learning-based prioritization tool for title/abstract screening – impact on reviewer-relevant outcomes. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2020;20(1):256.
Article
CAS
Google Scholar
Adams CE, Polzmacher S, Wolff A. Systematic reviews: work that needs to be done and not to be done. J Evid Based Med. 2013;6(4):232–5.
Article
Google Scholar
Kohl C, McIntosh EJ, Unger S, Haddaway NR, Kecke S, Schiemann J, et al. Online tools supporting the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and systematic maps: a case study on CADIMA and review of existing tools. Environmental Evidence. 2018;7(1):8.
Article
Google Scholar
Deo RC. Machine learning in medicine. Circulation. 2015;132(20):1920–30.
Article
Google Scholar
Patel L, Shukla T, Huang X, Ussery DW, Wang S. Machine learning methods in drug discovery. Molecules. 2020;25(22):5277.
Bi Q, Goodman KE, Kaminsky J, Lessler J. What is machine learning? A primer for the epidemiologist. Am J Epidemiol. 2019;188(12):2222–39.
Google Scholar
Bannach-Brown A, Przybyła P, Thomas J, Rice ASC, Ananiadou S, Liao J, et al. Machine learning algorithms for systematic review: reducing workload in a preclinical review of animal studies and reducing human screening error. Syst Rev. 2019;8(1):23.
Article
Google Scholar
O’Mara-Eves A, Thomas J, McNaught J, Miwa M, Ananiadou S. Using text mining for study identification in systematic reviews: a systematic review of current approaches. Syst Rev. 2015;4(1):5.
Article
Google Scholar
Boudin F, Nie J-Y, Bartlett JC, Grad R, Pluye P, Dawes M. Combining classifiers for robust PICO element detection. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2010;10(1):29.
Article
Google Scholar
Olorisade BK, Quincey Ed, Brereton P, Andras P. A critical analysis of studies that address the use of text mining for citation screening in systematic reviews. Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering; Limerick, Ireland: Association for Computing Machinery; 2016. p. Article 14.
van de Schoot R, de Bruin J, Schram R, Zahedi P, de Boer J, Weijdema F, et al. An open source machine learning framework for efficient and transparent systematic reviews. Nat Mach Intell. 2021;3(2):125–33.
Article
Google Scholar
Thomas J, Brunton J. EPPI-Reviewer 4: Software for Research Synthesis. 2010.
Boudin F, Nie J-Y, Dawes M. Clinical information retrieval using document and PICO structure. Human Language Technologies: The 2010 Annual Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics; Los Angeles, California: Association for Computational Linguistics; 2010. p. 822–30.
Marshall IJ, Kuiper J, Wallace BC. RobotReviewer: evaluation of a system for automatically assessing bias in clinical trials. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2016;23(1):193–201. https://doi.org/10.1093/jamia/ocv044.
Automating the Systematic Review Process: A Bibliometric Analysis.
Grant MJ, Booth A. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Info Libr J. 2009;26(2):91–108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x.
Foster MED, Deardorff MA. Open Science Framework (OSF). Journal of the Medical Library Association. 2017;105(2).
Comprehensive Perl Archive Network (CPAN). https://www.cpan.org/. Accessed 13 May 2021.
The Comprehensive R Archive Network (CRAN). https://cran.r-project.org/. Accessed 11 May 2021.
GitHub, Inc. https://github.com/. Accessed 10 May 2021.
The National Centre for Text Mining (NaCTeM). http://www.nactem.ac.uk/. Accessed 7 May 2021.
The PHP Extension Community Library (PECL). https://pecl.php.net/. Accessed 5 May 2021.
The Python Package Index (PyPI). https://pypi.org/. Accessed 4 may 2021.
SourceForge. https://sourceforge.net/. Accessed 3 May 2021.
The Systematic Review Toolbox (SR toolbox). http://systematicreviewtools.com/. Accessed 3 May 2021.
Mujtaba G, Shuib L, Idris N, Hoo WL, Raj RG, Khowaja K, et al. Clinical text classification research trends: systematic literature review and open issues. Expert Syst Appl. 2019;116:494–520.
Article
Google Scholar
Riccio V, Jahangirova G, Stocco A, Humbatova N, Weiss M, Tonella P. Testing machine learning based systems: a systematic mapping. Empir Softw Eng. 2020;25(6):5193–254. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-020-09881-0.
Covidence. https://www.covidence.org/terms/. Accessed 25 Nov 2021.
Dr.Evidence. https://www.drevidence.com/?hsLang=en. Accessed 25 Nov 2021.
Wallace BC, Noel-Storr A, Marshall IJ, Cohen AM, Smalheiser NR, Thomas J. Identifying reports of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) via a hybrid machine learning and crowdsourcing approach. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2017;24(6):1165–8.
Article
Google Scholar
Metaverse. https://rmetaverse.github.io/updates/2019/09/05/background-to-metaverse.html. Accessed 25 Nov 2021.
Higgins JP AD. Assessing risk of bias in included studies. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2019. p. 187–241.
Elicit: The AI Research Assistant. https://elicit.org/. Accessed 22 Sept 2022.