BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Systematic reviews (SRs) are time and resource intensive, requiring approximately 1 year from protocol registration to submission for publication. Our aim was to describe the process, facilitators, and barriers to completing the first 2-week full SR. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We systematically reviewed evidence of the impact of increased fluid intake, on urinary tract infection (UTI) recurrence, in individuals at risk for UTIs. The review was conducted by experienced systematic reviewers with complementary skills (two researcher clinicians, an information specialist, and an epidemiologist), using Systematic Review Automation tools, and blocked off time for the duration of the project. The outcomes were time to complete the SR, time to complete individual SR tasks, facilitators and barriers to progress, and peer reviewer feedback on the SR manuscript. Times to completion were analyzed quantitatively (minutes and calendar days); facilitators and barriers were mapped onto the Theoretical Domains Framework; and peer reviewer feedback was analyzed quantitatively and narratively. RESULTS: The SR was completed in 61 person-hours (9 workdays; 12 calendar days); accepted version of the manuscript required 71 person-hours. Individual SR tasks ranged from 16 person-minutes (deduplication of search results) to 461 person-minutes (data extraction). The least time-consuming SR tasks were obtaining full-texts, searches, citation analysis, data synthesis, and deduplication. The most time-consuming tasks were data extraction, write-up, abstract screening, full-text screening, and risk of bias. Facilitators and barriers mapped onto the following domains: knowledge; skills; memory, attention, and decision process; environmental context and resources; and technology and infrastructure. Two sets of peer reviewer feedback were received on the manuscript: the first included 34 comments requesting changes, 17 changes were made, requiring 173 person-minutes; the second requested 13 changes, and eight were made, requiring 121 person-minutes. CONCLUSION: A small and experienced systematic reviewer team using Systematic Review Automation tools who have protected time to focus solely on the SR can complete a moderately sized SR in 2 weeks.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Systematic reviews (SRs) are time and resource intensive, requiring approximately 1 year from protocol registration to submission for publication. Our aim was to describe the process, facilitators, and barriers to completing the first 2-week full SR. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We systematically reviewed evidence of the impact of increased fluid intake, on urinary tract infection (UTI) recurrence, in individuals at risk for UTIs. The review was conducted by experienced systematic reviewers with complementary skills (two researcher clinicians, an information specialist, and an epidemiologist), using Systematic Review Automation tools, and blocked off time for the duration of the project. The outcomes were time to complete the SR, time to complete individual SR tasks, facilitators and barriers to progress, and peer reviewer feedback on the SR manuscript. Times to completion were analyzed quantitatively (minutes and calendar days); facilitators and barriers were mapped onto the Theoretical Domains Framework; and peer reviewer feedback was analyzed quantitatively and narratively. RESULTS: The SR was completed in 61 person-hours (9 workdays; 12 calendar days); accepted version of the manuscript required 71 person-hours. Individual SR tasks ranged from 16 person-minutes (deduplication of search results) to 461 person-minutes (data extraction). The least time-consuming SR tasks were obtaining full-texts, searches, citation analysis, data synthesis, and deduplication. The most time-consuming tasks were data extraction, write-up, abstract screening, full-text screening, and risk of bias. Facilitators and barriers mapped onto the following domains: knowledge; skills; memory, attention, and decision process; environmental context and resources; and technology and infrastructure. Two sets of peer reviewer feedback were received on the manuscript: the first included 34 comments requesting changes, 17 changes were made, requiring 173 person-minutes; the second requested 13 changes, and eight were made, requiring 121 person-minutes. CONCLUSION: A small and experienced systematic reviewer team using Systematic Review Automation tools who have protected time to focus solely on the SR can complete a moderately sized SR in 2 weeks.
Authors: Ivan Jukic; Alejandro Pérez Castilla; Amador García Ramos; Bas Van Hooren; Michael R McGuigan; Eric R Helms Journal: Sports Med Date: 2022-09-30 Impact factor: 11.928
Authors: Mina Bakhit; Natalia Krzyzaniak; Joanne Hilder; Justin Clark; Anna Mae Scott; Chris Del Mar Journal: Br J Gen Pract Date: 2021-06-24 Impact factor: 6.302
Authors: Benjamin P Geisler; Lara Zahabi; Adam E Lang; Naomi Eastwood; Elaine Tennant; Ljiljana Lukic; Elad Sharon; Hai-Hua Chuang; Chang-Berm Kang; Knakita Clayton-Johnson; Ahmed Aljaberi; Haining Yu; Chinh Bui; Tuan Le Mau; Wen-Cheng Li; Debbie Teodorescu; Ludwig Christian Hinske; Dennis L Sun; Farrin A Manian; Adam G Dunn Journal: medRxiv Date: 2020-05-23
Authors: Allison Gates; Michelle Gates; Daniel DaRosa; Sarah A Elliott; Jennifer Pillay; Sholeh Rahman; Ben Vandermeer; Lisa Hartling Journal: Syst Rev Date: 2020-11-27