Many researchers use citation managers and Microsoft programs to facilitate citation screening or to extract and management data but these programs were not created specifically for these purposes. To overcome some of the limitations of using citation managers and Microsoft programs for these purposes, review software and tools have been developed that are becoming more popular than ever. In addition to the programs described below, some collaborative networks offer additional tools for reviewers. Check out Cochrane tools and software from the Joanna Briggs Institute.
"Covidence is a not-for-profit service working in partnership with Cochrane to improve the production and use of systematic reviews for health and wellbeing. As systematic reviewers ourselves, we were frustrated at the systems available to reviewers to produce timely, high-quality evidence - so we've dedicated ourselves to making tools that make systematic reviewing faster, easier and more enjoyable!"
Note: Free trials for students are available for the duration of one semester.
"DistillerSR is the the world’s most used systematic review software. It was designed from the ground up to give you a better review experience, faster project completion and transparent, audit-ready results."
"In an effort to reduce the burden of conducting systematic reviews, researchers and developers at the Brown University Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC) (previously at Tufts Medical Center), with support from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), have developed a collaborative, Web-based repository of systematic review data. This resource serves as both an archive and data extraction tool and is shared among organizations and individuals producing systematic reviews worldwide, enabling the creation of a central database of systematic review data which may be critiqued, updated, and augmented on an ongoing basis. This database is freely accessible to facilitate evidence reviews and thus improve and speed up policy-making with regards to healthcare."
"Systematic reviews are a time consuming, logistically challenging and labour intensive undertaking. These and other challenges have led to the development of various software tools to support the systematic review process. The Systematic Review Toolbox is a community-driven, searchable, web-based catalogue of tools that support the systematic review process across multiple domains. The resource aims to help reviewers find appropriate tools based on how they provide support for the systematic review process. Users can perform a simple keyword search (i.e. Quick Search) to locate tools, a more detailed search (i.e. Advanced Search) allowing users to select various criteria to find specific types of tools and submit new tools to the database. Although the focus of the Toolbox is on identifying software tools to support systematic reviews, other tools or support mechanisms (such as checklists, guidelines and reporting standards) can also be found."
Babineau, J. (2014). Product review: Covidence (systematic review software). Journal of the Canadian Health Libraries Association, 35(2), 68. https://doi.org/10.5596/c14-016
Couban, R. (2016). Covidence and Rayyan. Journal of the Canadian Health Libraries Association, 37(3), 2–5. https://doi.org/10.5596/c16
Olofsson, H., Brolund, A., Hellberg, C., Silverstein, R., Stenström, K., Österberg, M., & Dagerhamn, J. (2017). Can abstract screening workload be reduced using text mining? User experiences of the tool Rayyan. Research Synthesis Methods, 8(3). https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1237
Ouzzani, M., Hammady, H., Fedorowicz, Z., & Elmagarmid, A. (2016). Rayyan - A web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Systematic Reviews, 5(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0384-4
Rathbone, J., Hoffmann, T., & Glasziou, P. (2015). Faster title and abstract screening? Evaluating Abstrackr, a semi-automated online screening program for systematic reviewers. Systematic Reviews, 4(80). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-015-0067-6
Swab, M. (2016). Product review: Mendeley Data. Journal of the Canadian Health Libraries Association, 37(3), 121–123. https://doi.org/10.5596/c16-022