Toward systematic review automation: a practical guide to using machine learning tools in research synthesis
Abstract
Technologies and methods to speed up the production of systematic reviews by reducing the manual labour involved have recently emerged. Automation has been proposed or used to expedite most steps of the systematic review process, including search, screening, and data extraction. However, how these technologies work in practice and when (and when not) to use them is often not clear to practitioners. In this practical guide, we provide an overview of current machine learning methods that have been proposed to expedite evidence synthesis. We also offer guidance on which of these are ready for use, their strengths and weaknesses, and how a systematic review team might go about using them in practice.
How strong is the evidence?
Evidence Hub reads this as a systematic review, done in computer models (in silico), not in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health.
Read the paper
Related studies
- Challenges and opportunities with drug repurposing: finding strategies to find alternative uses of therapeutics
- Challenges in Chagas Disease Drug Development
- T Cell Specificity: A Great Challenge in Chagas Disease
- Benznidazole treatment leads to DNA damage in Trypanosoma cruzi and the persistence of rare widely dispersed non-replicative amastigotes in mice
- Rapid Molecular Detection of Terbinafine-resistant Dermatophytes
- Identifying novel drugs with new modes of action for neglected tropical fungal skin diseases (fungal skinNTDs) using an Open Source Drug discovery approach
Go deeper in Evidence Hub
Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.