Purpose This study investigates the functionality of electronic databases in supporting systematic reviews within computing. It aims to identify essential features that facilitate the systematic review workflows and to highlight limitations that hinder the effective use of databases during the review process. Design/methodology/approach The study employs a qualitative approach, utilising a checklist-based evaluation methodology. Data were collected through direct interaction with 14 electronic databases selected based on their frequency of use in systematic reviews in computing and their growing prominence as tools for accessing scholarly content. Each database was evaluated against a predefined set of 13 functionalities considered essential to support systematic review workflows. Observations and usability issues encountered during the evaluation were systematically documented. Findings The study identified several limitations in the functionality of the evaluated databases, including difficulties in identifying existing systematic reviews, lack of support for “search within results”, limited export capabilities, incomplete metadata in exported records, and the absence of functionality for comparing search queries. These findings provide evidence that, while databases serve a central role in the systematic review process, their current functionalities are not fully aligned with the practical requirements of systematic review workflows. Originality/value Unlike prior research that has primarily focused on database coverage or general usability, this study provides valuable insights into the extent to which existing electronic databases support systematic review workflows. The findings contribute to the advancement of evidence-based research in computing by identifying critical functional gaps and highlighting practical areas for improvement. These insights are valuable for both database providers, who can use them to prioritise feature development, and researchers, who can use the findings to make more informed decisions when selecting databases, designing search strategies, managing references, and planning screening and synthesis activities. Moreover, the study highlights directions for future research and has the potential to inform the design of more effective tools for supporting systematic review processes.
Ghader Kurdi (Fri,) studied this question.