Software tools to support title and abstract screening for systematic reviews in healthcare: an evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews are vital to the pursuit of evidence-based medicine within healthcare. Screening titles and abstracts (T&Ab) for inclusion in a systematic review is an intensive, and often collaborative, step. The use of appropriate tools is therefore important. In this study, we identified and evaluated the usability of software tools that support T&Ab screening for systematic reviews within healthcare research. METHODS: We identified software tools using three search methods: a web-based search; a search of the online "systematic review toolbox"; and screening of references in existing literature. We included tools that were accessible and available for testing at the time of the study (December 2018), do not require specific computing infrastructure and provide basic screening functionality for systematic reviews. Key properties of each software tool were identified using a feature analysis adapted for this purpose. This analysis included a weighting developed by a group of medical researchers, therefore prioritising the most relevant features. The highest scoring tools from the feature analysis were then included in a user survey, in which we further investigated the suitability of the tools for supporting T&Ab screening amongst systematic reviewers working in medical research. RESULTS: Fifteen tools met our inclusion criteria. They vary significantly in relation to cost, scope and intended user community. Six of the identified tools (Abstrackr, Colandr, Covidence, DRAGON, EPPI-Reviewer and Rayyan) scored higher than 75% in the feature analysis and were included in the user survey. Of these, Covidence and Rayyan were the most popular with the survey respondents. Their usability scored highly across a range of metrics, with all surveyed researchers (n = 6) stating that they would be likely (or very likely) to use these tools in the future. CONCLUSIONS: Based on this study, we would recommend Covidence and Rayyan to systematic reviewers looking for suitable and easy to use tools to support T&Ab screening within healthcare research. These two tools consistently demonstrated good alignment with user requirements. We acknowledge, however, the role of some of the other tools we considered in providing more specialist features that may be of great importance to many researchers.

COVID-19 and diabetes: Analysis of the scientific production indexed in Scopus.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: COVID-19 has affected the world population, with a higher impact among at-risk groups, such as diabetic patients. This has led to an exponential increase in the number of studies related to the subject, although their bibliometric characteristics are unknown. This article aims to characterize the world scientific production on COVID-19 and diabetes indexed in Scopus. METHODS: Articles on the subject were retrieved using a search strategy and bibliometric indicators of production, visibility, collaboration and impact were studied. RESULTS: The total scientific production was 1956 documents, which have 35086 citations and an h-index of 67. Articles published in Diabetes and Metabolic Syndrome: Clinical Research and Reviews (n = 127), as well as those by researchers from the United States (n = 498) predominated. Articles by Chinese authors (n = 314) had the highest impact according to the received citations (n = 21757). India, China and Spain are leading countries in terms of the research in which they participate. There is extensive international scientific collaboration led by China, the United States and Italy. CONCLUSION: The volume of publications on COVID-19 and diabetes and their scientific impact show the incentive that the study of these diseases represents for the scientific community worldwide.