Letters The automation of systematic reviews

The efficient production of high quality evidence reviews is important for the public good

BMJ 2013; 346 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f846 (Published 13 February 2013) Cite this as: BMJ 2013;346:f846
  1. Julian H Elliott, head, clinical research1,
  2. Chris Mavergames, director of web development2,
  3. Lorne Becker, emeritus professor3,
  4. Joerg Meerpohl, deputy director2,
  5. Jessica Thomas, IMS team manager4,
  6. Russell Gruen, director5,
  7. David Tovey, editor in chief6
  1. 1Infectious Diseases Unit, Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Vic, Australia
  2. 2German Cochrane Centre, Freiburg, Germany
  3. 3Department of Family Medicine, SUNY Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, NY 13210, USA
  4. 4Cochrane IMS Team, Nordic Cochrane Centre, Copenhagen, Denmark
  5. 5National Trauma Research Institute, Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Vic, Australia
  6. 6Cochrane Editorial Unit, Cochrane Collaboration, London, UK
  1. julian.elliott{at}alfred.org.au

We support Tsafnat and colleagues’ argument that automation could transform systematic review production.1 Technological innovation has played a central role since the birth of systematic review,2 and machine processes are embedded throughout current systematic review workflow. Nevertheless, current methods are not sustainable in the face of the deluge of primary research.

Few of the recent …

View Full Text

Sign in

Log in through your institution

Free trial

Register for a free trial to thebmj.com to receive unlimited access to all content on thebmj.com for 14 days.
Sign up for a free trial

Subscribe