Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Evidence for Evidence-Based Medicine - A Call for Some Theory and a New Problem.

NEJM evidence·2026
Same author

Age-Friendly Health System Implementation in Outpatient Settings: A Systematic Review.

Journal of the American Geriatrics Society·2026
Same author

Differences in Bladder Cancer Diagnosis by Demographic Factors: A Simulation Modeling Analysis.

medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences·2026
Same author

Understanding Bladder Cancer Screening Limits Through Comparative Modeling: The Maximum Clinical Incidence Reduction (MCLIR) Methodology.

medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences·2026
Same author

Fiber intake and laxation in people with normal bowel function: a systematic review.

The American journal of clinical nutrition·2026
Same author

On Representations and Quantifications of Uncertainty.

Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making·2026

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Oct 19, 2025

The Application of Open Searching-based Approaches for the Identification of Acinetobacter baumannii O-linked Glycopeptides
08:37

The Application of Open Searching-based Approaches for the Identification of Acinetobacter baumannii O-linked Glycopeptides

Published on: November 2, 2021

2.4K

Semi-automated Tools for Systematic Searches.

Gaelen P Adam1, Byron C Wallace2, Thomas A Trikalinos3

  • 1Center for Evidence Synthesis in Health, Brown University School of Public Health, Providence, RI, USA. gaelen_adam@brown.edu.

Methods in Molecular Biology (Clifton, N.J.)
|September 22, 2021
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Systematic reviews traditionally use a two-step literature search and screening process. New tools aim to streamline or unify these steps, but evaluating their effectiveness is crucial.

Keywords:
Information scienceLiterature identificationMachine learningSystematic review methodsText mining

More Related Videos

Applying Cheminformatics to Develop a Structure Searchable Database of Analytical Methods
05:34

Applying Cheminformatics to Develop a Structure Searchable Database of Analytical Methods

Published on: June 6, 2025

989
Comparing Bibliometric Analysis Using PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science Databases
05:02

Comparing Bibliometric Analysis Using PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science Databases

Published on: October 24, 2019

32.5K

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Oct 19, 2025

The Application of Open Searching-based Approaches for the Identification of Acinetobacter baumannii O-linked Glycopeptides
08:37

The Application of Open Searching-based Approaches for the Identification of Acinetobacter baumannii O-linked Glycopeptides

Published on: November 2, 2021

2.4K
Applying Cheminformatics to Develop a Structure Searchable Database of Analytical Methods
05:34

Applying Cheminformatics to Develop a Structure Searchable Database of Analytical Methods

Published on: June 6, 2025

989
Comparing Bibliometric Analysis Using PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science Databases
05:02

Comparing Bibliometric Analysis Using PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science Databases

Published on: October 24, 2019

32.5K

Area of Science:

  • Information Science
  • Medical Informatics
  • Bibliometrics

Background:

  • Systematic reviews require comprehensive literature identification.
  • Traditional methods involve a two-step search and manual screening process.
  • Existing tools offer partial automation for specific tasks.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To review the landscape of tools for literature identification in systematic reviews.
  • To highlight the development of tools that streamline or unify searching and screening.
  • To emphasize the need for methods to evaluate these emerging tools.

Main Methods:

  • Review of existing literature and development of tools for systematic review processes.
  • Categorization of tools based on their function (e.g., term generation, query visualization, deduplication, prioritization).
  • Discussion of ongoing research towards integrated search and screening tools.

Main Results:

  • A variety of tools exist to semi-automate and streamline literature identification.
  • Tools address specific stages like search query optimization, citation management, and abstract prioritization.
  • Prototype tools are emerging that aim to unify searching and screening.

Conclusions:

  • The field of tools for systematic review literature identification is rapidly evolving.
  • There is a growing need for standardized methods to evaluate the performance of these tools.
  • Effective evaluation is key to ensuring the reliability and efficiency of systematic reviews.