Living systematic reviews: 2. Combining human and machine effort

James Thomas, Anna Noel-Storr, Iain Marshall, Byron Wallace, Steven McDonald, Chris Mavergames, Paul Glasziou, Ian Shemilt, Anneliese Synnot, Tari Turner, Julian Elliott, Living Systematic Review Network

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articleResearchpeer-review

38 Citations (Scopus)
47 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

New approaches to evidence synthesis, which use human effort and machine automation in mutually reinforcing ways, can enhance the feasibility and sustainability of living systematic reviews. Human effort is a scarce and valuable resource, required when automation is impossible or undesirable, and includes contributions from online communities (“crowds”) as well as more conventional contributions from review authors and information specialists. Automation can assist with some systematic review tasks, including searching, eligibility assessment, identification and retrieval of full-text reports, extraction of data, and risk of bias assessment. Workflows can be developed in which human effort and machine automation can each enable the other to operate in more effective and efficient ways, offering substantial enhancement to the productivity of systematic reviews. This paper describes and discusses the potential—and limitations—of new ways of undertaking specific tasks in living systematic reviews, identifying areas where these human/machine “technologies” are already in use, and where further research and development is needed. While the context is living systematic reviews, many of these enabling technologies apply equally to standard approaches to systematic reviewing.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)31-37
Number of pages7
JournalJournal of Clinical Epidemiology
Volume91
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Nov 2017

Fingerprint

Automation
Technology
Information Services
Workflow
Research

Cite this

Thomas, J., Noel-Storr, A., Marshall, I., Wallace, B., McDonald, S., Mavergames, C., ... Living Systematic Review Network (2017). Living systematic reviews: 2. Combining human and machine effort. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 91, 31-37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.08.011
Thomas, James ; Noel-Storr, Anna ; Marshall, Iain ; Wallace, Byron ; McDonald, Steven ; Mavergames, Chris ; Glasziou, Paul ; Shemilt, Ian ; Synnot, Anneliese ; Turner, Tari ; Elliott, Julian ; Living Systematic Review Network. / Living systematic reviews: 2. Combining human and machine effort. In: Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2017 ; Vol. 91. pp. 31-37.
@article{93734e66344c41518cca681c2b4a7566,
title = "Living systematic reviews: 2. Combining human and machine effort",
abstract = "New approaches to evidence synthesis, which use human effort and machine automation in mutually reinforcing ways, can enhance the feasibility and sustainability of living systematic reviews. Human effort is a scarce and valuable resource, required when automation is impossible or undesirable, and includes contributions from online communities (“crowds”) as well as more conventional contributions from review authors and information specialists. Automation can assist with some systematic review tasks, including searching, eligibility assessment, identification and retrieval of full-text reports, extraction of data, and risk of bias assessment. Workflows can be developed in which human effort and machine automation can each enable the other to operate in more effective and efficient ways, offering substantial enhancement to the productivity of systematic reviews. This paper describes and discusses the potential—and limitations—of new ways of undertaking specific tasks in living systematic reviews, identifying areas where these human/machine “technologies” are already in use, and where further research and development is needed. While the context is living systematic reviews, many of these enabling technologies apply equally to standard approaches to systematic reviewing.",
author = "James Thomas and Anna Noel-Storr and Iain Marshall and Byron Wallace and Steven McDonald and Chris Mavergames and Paul Glasziou and Ian Shemilt and Anneliese Synnot and Tari Turner and Julian Elliott and {Living Systematic Review Network}",
note = "Copyright {\circledC} 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.",
year = "2017",
month = "11",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.08.011",
language = "English",
volume = "91",
pages = "31--37",
journal = "Journal of Chronic Diseases",
issn = "0895-4356",
publisher = "Elsevier",

}

Thomas, J, Noel-Storr, A, Marshall, I, Wallace, B, McDonald, S, Mavergames, C, Glasziou, P, Shemilt, I, Synnot, A, Turner, T, Elliott, J & Living Systematic Review Network 2017, 'Living systematic reviews: 2. Combining human and machine effort' Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, vol. 91, pp. 31-37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.08.011

Living systematic reviews: 2. Combining human and machine effort. / Thomas, James; Noel-Storr, Anna; Marshall, Iain; Wallace, Byron; McDonald, Steven; Mavergames, Chris; Glasziou, Paul; Shemilt, Ian; Synnot, Anneliese; Turner, Tari; Elliott, Julian; Living Systematic Review Network.

In: Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, Vol. 91, 01.11.2017, p. 31-37.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Living systematic reviews: 2. Combining human and machine effort

AU - Thomas, James

AU - Noel-Storr, Anna

AU - Marshall, Iain

AU - Wallace, Byron

AU - McDonald, Steven

AU - Mavergames, Chris

AU - Glasziou, Paul

AU - Shemilt, Ian

AU - Synnot, Anneliese

AU - Turner, Tari

AU - Elliott, Julian

AU - Living Systematic Review Network

N1 - Copyright © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

PY - 2017/11/1

Y1 - 2017/11/1

N2 - New approaches to evidence synthesis, which use human effort and machine automation in mutually reinforcing ways, can enhance the feasibility and sustainability of living systematic reviews. Human effort is a scarce and valuable resource, required when automation is impossible or undesirable, and includes contributions from online communities (“crowds”) as well as more conventional contributions from review authors and information specialists. Automation can assist with some systematic review tasks, including searching, eligibility assessment, identification and retrieval of full-text reports, extraction of data, and risk of bias assessment. Workflows can be developed in which human effort and machine automation can each enable the other to operate in more effective and efficient ways, offering substantial enhancement to the productivity of systematic reviews. This paper describes and discusses the potential—and limitations—of new ways of undertaking specific tasks in living systematic reviews, identifying areas where these human/machine “technologies” are already in use, and where further research and development is needed. While the context is living systematic reviews, many of these enabling technologies apply equally to standard approaches to systematic reviewing.

AB - New approaches to evidence synthesis, which use human effort and machine automation in mutually reinforcing ways, can enhance the feasibility and sustainability of living systematic reviews. Human effort is a scarce and valuable resource, required when automation is impossible or undesirable, and includes contributions from online communities (“crowds”) as well as more conventional contributions from review authors and information specialists. Automation can assist with some systematic review tasks, including searching, eligibility assessment, identification and retrieval of full-text reports, extraction of data, and risk of bias assessment. Workflows can be developed in which human effort and machine automation can each enable the other to operate in more effective and efficient ways, offering substantial enhancement to the productivity of systematic reviews. This paper describes and discusses the potential—and limitations—of new ways of undertaking specific tasks in living systematic reviews, identifying areas where these human/machine “technologies” are already in use, and where further research and development is needed. While the context is living systematic reviews, many of these enabling technologies apply equally to standard approaches to systematic reviewing.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85028965305&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.08.011

DO - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.08.011

M3 - Review article

VL - 91

SP - 31

EP - 37

JO - Journal of Chronic Diseases

JF - Journal of Chronic Diseases

SN - 0895-4356

ER -

Thomas J, Noel-Storr A, Marshall I, Wallace B, McDonald S, Mavergames C et al. Living systematic reviews: 2. Combining human and machine effort. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2017 Nov 1;91:31-37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.08.011