The development of software to support multiple systematic review types: the Joanna Briggs Institute System for the Unified Management, Assessment and Review of Information (JBI SUMARI)
By Z. Munn, E. Aromataris, Catalin Tufanaru, Cindy Stern, K. Porritt, James R. Farrow, C. Lockwood, M. Stephenson, Sandeep Moola, L. Lizarondo and 4 more. International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare, 2019
870 citations recorded by the source corpus.
Aim: Systematic reviews play an important role in ensuring trustworthy recommendations in healthcare. However, systematic reviews can be laborious to undertake and as such software has been developed to assist in the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews. The Joanna Briggs Institute and its collaborating centres consist of thousands of researchers, academics and clinicians across the globe conducting systematic reviews of various types. To support them in their work, modern software and online tools are required. Our aim was to develop a software program to support systematic reviewers across the globe. Methods: A working party was formed with extensive consultation with members of the Joanna Briggs Collaboration focusing on ideal features of a software program to support systematic reviews. The new systematic review software was built using an agile methodology and designed to be a modern web application. Results: The new systematic review software, the Joanna Briggs Institute System for the Unified Management, Assessment and Review of Information (JBI SUMARI), was successfully developed through an iterative process of development, feedback, testing and review. The software is now available (https://www.jbisumari.org/) and supports the entire systematic review process for different types of systematic reviews. Conclusions: An agile software development approach combined with wide consultation and user testing can facilitate systematic review software design and development. This new software can support systematic reviews and guideline developers to create systematic reviews for a diverse range of questions.
Subfields: History and Philosophy of Science, Sociology and Political Science, Statistics and Probability
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/3279ee93af2b8ea41bbfc9840b0f4d99bdc7fd75
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Sociology and Political Science
In Statistics and Probability
Citations in the corpus
- Best practice guidance and reporting items for the development of scoping review protocols (2022, neutral): “28 The protocol should provide some information regarding how excluded sources will be reported in the final review (eg, whether they will be included in an appendix with reasons for exclusion reported, and whether this list will include all sources excluded or only those excluded at the full-text…”
- Methodological quality of case series studies: an introduction to the JBI critical appraisal tool (2019, methodology): “It was also embedded in the JBI System for the Unified Management, Assessment and Review of Information (JBI SUMARI; Adelaide, Australia, JBI).(24) Within the tool, some of the items relate to risk of bias, whereas others relate to ensuring adequate reporting and statistical analysis.”
- Undertaking a scoping review: A practical guide for nursing and midwifery students, clinicians, researchers, and academics (2021, methodology): “…frameworks), co-authors for the study selection and extraction process, software to support the process (such as SUMARI and/or reference management software) (Munn et al., 2019), an academic librarian to assist with preparing the search strategy, and sufficient time (Peters, Godfrey, et al., 2020).”