Search strategy formulation for systematic reviews: Issues, challenges and opportunities

Systematic literature reviews play a vital role in identifying the best available evidence for health and social care research, policy, and practice. The resources required to produce systematic reviews can be significant, and a key to the success of any review is the search strategy used to identify relevant literature. However, the methods used to construct search strategies can be complex, time consuming, resource intensive and error prone. In this review, we examine the state of the art in resolving complex structured information needs, focusing primarily on the healthcare context. We analyse the literature to identify key challenges and issues and explore appropriate solutions and workarounds. From this analysis we propose a way forward to facilitate trust and to aid explainability and transparency, reproducibility and replicability through a set of key design principles for tools to support the development of search strategies in systematic literature reviews

Identifying Relevant Evidence for Systematic Reviews and Review Updates

Systematic reviews identify, assess and synthesise the evidence available to answer complex research questions. They are essential in healthcare, where the volume of evidence in scientific research publications is vast and cannot feasibly be identified or analysed by individual clinicians or decision makers. However, the process of creating a systematic review is time consuming and expensive. The pace of scientific publication in medicine and related fields also means that evidence bases are continually changing and review conclusions can quickly become out of date. Therefore, developing methods to support the creating and updating of reviews is essential to reduce the workload required and thereby ensure that reviews remain up to date. This research aims to support systematic reviews, thus improving healthcare through natural language processing and information retrieval techniques. More specifically, this thesis aims to support the process of identifying relevant evidence for systematic reviews and review updates to reduce the workload required from researchers. This research proposes methods to improve studies ranking for systematic reviews. In addition, this thesis describes a dataset of systematic review updates in the field of medicine created using 25 Cochrane reviews. Moreover, this thesis develops an algorithm to automatically refine the Boolean query to improve the identification of relevant studies for review updates. The research demonstrates that automating the process of identifying relevant evidence can reduce the workload of conducting and updating systematic reviews

LIMSI@CLEF eHealth 2018 Task 2: Technology assisted reviews by stacking active and static learning

This paper describes the participation of the LIMSI-MIROR team at CLEF eHealth 2018, task 2. The task addresses the automatic ranking of articles in order to assist with the screening process of Diagnostic Test Accuracy (DTA) Systematic Reviews. We ranked articles by stacking two models, one linear regressor trained on untargeted training data, and one model using active learning. The workload reduction to retrieve 95% of the relevant articles was estimated at 82.4%, and we observe a workload reduction less than 70% in only two topics. The results suggest that automatic assistance is promising for ranking the DTA literature

Front-Line Physicians' Satisfaction with Information Systems in Hospitals

Day-to-day operations management in hospital units is difficult due to continuously varying situations, several actors involved and a vast number of information systems in use. The aim of this study was to describe front-line physicians' satisfaction with existing information systems needed to support the day-to-day operations management in hospitals. A cross-sectional survey was used and data chosen with stratified random sampling were collected in nine hospitals. Data were analyzed with descriptive and inferential statistical methods. The response rate was 65 % (n = 111). The physicians reported that information systems support their decision making to some extent, but they do not improve access to information nor are they tailored for physicians. The respondents also reported that they need to use several information systems to support decision making and that they would prefer one information system to access important information. Improved information access would better support physicians' decision making and has the potential to improve the quality of decisions and speed up the decision making process.Peer reviewe