↓ Skip to main content

Systematic review automation technologies

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, July 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#45 of 1,578)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

1 blog
99 tweeters
1 peer review site
1 Wikipedia page
2 Google+ users
1 Redditor


159 Dimensions

Readers on

422 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Systematic review automation technologies
Published in
Systematic Reviews, July 2014
DOI 10.1186/2046-4053-3-74
Pubmed ID

Guy Tsafnat, Paul Glasziou, Miew Keen Choong, Adam Dunn, Filippo Galgani, Enrico Coiera


Systematic reviews, a cornerstone of evidence-based medicine, are not produced quickly enough to support clinical practice. The cost of production, availability of the requisite expertise and timeliness are often quoted as major contributors for the delay. This detailed survey of the state of the art of information systems designed to support or automate individual tasks in the systematic review, and in particular systematic reviews of randomized controlled clinical trials, reveals trends that see the convergence of several parallel research projects.We surveyed literature describing informatics systems that support or automate the processes of systematic review or each of the tasks of the systematic review. Several projects focus on automating, simplifying and/or streamlining specific tasks of the systematic review. Some tasks are already fully automated while others are still largely manual. In this review, we describe each task and the effect that its automation would have on the entire systematic review process, summarize the existing information system support for each task, and highlight where further research is needed for realizing automation for the task. Integration of the systems that automate systematic review tasks may lead to a revised systematic review workflow. We envisage the optimized workflow will lead to system in which each systematic review is described as a computer program that automatically retrieves relevant trials, appraises them, extracts and synthesizes data, evaluates the risk of bias, performs meta-analysis calculations, and produces a report in real time.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 99 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 422 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 8 2%
United States 4 <1%
Australia 2 <1%
Brazil 2 <1%
Korea, Republic of 1 <1%
Austria 1 <1%
Norway 1 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Other 4 <1%
Unknown 397 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 81 19%
Student > Master 78 18%
Researcher 59 14%
Student > Bachelor 32 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 31 7%
Other 94 22%
Unknown 47 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 86 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 79 19%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 30 7%
Engineering 21 5%
Social Sciences 18 4%
Other 111 26%
Unknown 77 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 70. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 October 2019.
All research outputs
of 17,475,439 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
of 1,578 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 195,256 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,475,439 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,578 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 195,256 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them