四种系统评价自动化软件包的可用性和可接受性：混合方法设计。
Usability and acceptability of four systematic review automation software packages: a mixed method design.
机构信息
Institute for Evidence-Based Healthcare, Bond University, Gold Coast, Australia.
Faculty of Health Sciences and Medicine, Bond University, Gold Coast, Australia.
出版信息
Syst Rev. 2019 Jun 20;8(1):145. doi: 10.1186/s13643-019-1069-6.
AIM
New software packages help to improve the efficiency of conducting a systematic review through automation of key steps in the systematic review. The aim of this study was to gather qualitative data on the usability and acceptability of four systematic review automation software packages (Covidence, SRA-Helper for EndNote, Rayyan and RobotAnalyst) for the citation screening step of a systematic review.
METHODS
We recruited three volunteer systematic reviewers and asked them to use allocated software packages during citation screening. They then completed a 12-item online questionnaire which was tailored to capture data for the software packages used.
FINDINGS
All four software packages were reported to be easy or very easy to learn and use. SRA-Helper for EndNote was most favoured by participants for screening citations and Covidence for resolving conflicts. Overall, participants reported that SRA-Helper for EndNote would be their software package of choice, primarily due to its efficiency.
CONCLUSION
This study identified a number of considerations which systematic reviewers can use as a basis of their decision which software to use when performing the citation screening and dispute resolution steps of a systematic review.
目的
新的软件包通过自动化系统评价中的关键步骤，帮助提高系统评价的效率。本研究的目的是收集关于四种系统评价自动化软件包（Covidence、SRA-Helper for EndNote、Rayyan 和 RobotAnalyst）在系统评价的引文筛选步骤中的可用性和可接受性的定性数据。
方法
我们招募了三名志愿系统评价员，并要求他们在引文筛选过程中使用分配的软件包。然后，他们完成了一份 12 项的在线问卷，旨在为使用的软件包收集数据。
结果
所有四个软件包都被报告为易于学习和使用，其中 SRA-Helper for EndNote 最受参与者欢迎，用于筛选引文，而 Covidence 则用于解决冲突。总体而言，参与者报告说，SRA-Helper for EndNote 将是他们首选的软件包，主要是因为它的效率。
结论
本研究确定了一些系统评价员在执行系统评价的引文筛选和争议解决步骤时可以作为选择软件的依据的考虑因素。
Zotero 插件