Since the birth of systematic reviews, technology has been an integral part of efforts to understand health evidence. Nevertheless, review authors commonly conduct the majority of their work on a patchwork of general software products poorly adapted to their needs, much of the data they handle is not captured for future use, and the core review output of a static PDF document limits the ability to search and process the contents of the review.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Elliott et al. (2014) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 3 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: