![]() ![]() ), have quickly become out of date since many new software packages have been recently released or are in development. Existing reviews of available software and tools (e.g. Herein, we discuss how CADIMA compares with other available tools by providing a comprehensive summary of existing review management software, and also discuss possible future development of CADIMA. Due to the expertise available at the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence (CEE) and the overlap of topics covered by both institutions, a close collaboration between JKI and CEE was established to develop CADIMA. The project’s working agenda included: (1) the conduct of a number of systematic reviews and maps for the purposes of increasing the transparency and traceability of information on potential risks and benefits associated with the deliberate release of genetically modified crops and, (2) the development of an open access online tool (CADIMA) to facilitate the conduct of systematic reviews and maps on agricultural and environmental questions. Here, we present the open access online tool CADIMA that was established by Julius Kühn-Institut (JKI) during a recently completed EU-funded project called GMO Risk Assessment and Communication of Evidence (GRACE). ![]() free to use, an important consideration for non-profit organisations in particular) (2) they may be targeted to a particular research discipline, meaning that their applicability in other disciplines may be restricted (3) they may not support the entire evidence synthesis process and, (4) they may have been developed solely for systematic reviews and may not support the conduct of systematic maps. Potential drawbacks associated with these tools include that: (1) they may not be open access (i.e. In order to support reviewers throughout the conduct of their syntheses, and to increase efficiency and maximise methodological rigour, software tools have been developed by a diverse set of providers to support review teams during the evidence synthesis process (the term evidence synthesis is used herein to cover both systematic reviews and systematic maps, which aim to characterise the available evidence-base rather than providing quantitative or qualitative answers to an impact or effectiveness question ). ![]() Although seen as a “gold standard” when synthesising primary research, the central tenets of systematic review and map methodologies necessarily increase the complexity of the review processes and their resource requirements (i.e. Systematic reviews and related systematic maps follow standardised and rigorous methodologies aiming to ensure comprehensiveness, minimise bias, and increase transparency. Their use is continuously expanding into other disciplines, including social welfare, international development, education, crime and justice, Footnote 1 environmental management Footnote 2 (including the impact assessment of crop genetic improvement technologies ), software engineering and food/feed safety assessment. Systematic reviews were first established in the field of healthcare to support evidence-based decision making. We show that CADIMA is the only available open access tool that is designed to: (1) assist throughout the systematic review/map process (2) be suited to reviews broader than medical sciences (3) allow for offline data extraction and, (4) support working as a review team. Furthermore, we analyse how CADIMA compares with other available tools by providing a comprehensive summary of existing software designed for the purposes of systematic review management. This paper introduces the open access online tool CADIMA, which was developed through a collaboration between the Julius Kühn-Institut and the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence, in order to increase the efficiency of the evidence synthesis process and facilitate reporting of all activities to maximise methodological rigour. Thus, managing the conduct and reporting of such reviews can become a time consuming and challenging task. Even though they are seen as the “gold standard” when synthesising primary research, systematic reviews and maps are typically resource-intensive and complex activities. Systematic reviews and systematic maps represent powerful tools to identify, collect, evaluate and summarise primary research pertinent to a specific research question or topic in a highly standardised and reproducible manner. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |