SZodixStudyAcademic Library
DashboardShelvesOpen accessMy libraryInboxNotesWriteLearnAlerts
More
Ask your libraryNotificationsQuick citeReview
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
Automating Biomedical Evidence Synthesis: RobotReviewer
7 references·16 citing·51 second hop
Automating Biomedical Evidence Synthesis: RobotReviewer (2017)Automating Biomedical Evidence Synthesis:…Analysis of the time and workers needed to conduct systematic reviews of medical interventions using data from the PROSPERO registry (2017)Analysis of the time and work…RobotReviewer: evaluation of a system for automatically assessing bias in clinical trials (2015)RobotReviewer: evaluation of …A scoping review of rapid review methods (2015)A scoping review of rapid rev…The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials (2011)The Cochrane Collaboration's …Systematic reviews: CRD's guidance for undertaking reviews in health care (2010)Systematic reviews: CRD's gui…Seventy-Five Trials and Eleven Systematic Reviews a Day: How Will We Ever Keep Up? (2010)Seventy-Five Trials and Eleve…Estimating Time to Conduct a Meta-analysis From Number of Citations Retrieved (1999)Estimating Time to Conduct a …ASReview LAB v.2: Open-source text screening with multiple agents and a crowd of experts (2025)ASReview LAB v.2: Open-source…Towards the automation of systematic reviews using natural language processing, machine learning, and deep learning: a comprehensive review (2024)Towards the automation of sys…Reproducibility and Data Storage for Active Learning-Aided Systematic Reviews (2024)Reproducibility and Data Stor…On the Use of Generative AI for Literature Reviews: An Exploration of Tools and Techniques (2024)On the Use of Generative AI f…Leveraging AI to improve evidence synthesis in conservation (2024)Leveraging AI to improve evid…The use of artificial intelligence for automating or semi-automating biomedical literature analyses: A scoping review (2023)The use of artificial intelli…Automating Quality Assessment of Medical Evidence in Systematic Reviews: Model Development and Validation Study (2023)Automating Quality Assessment…Machine learning computational tools to assist the performance of systematic reviews: A mapping review (2022)Machine learning computationa…Automating risk of bias assessment in systematic reviews: a real-time mixed methods comparison of human researchers to a machine learning system (2022)Automating risk of bias asses…Risk of bias assessment in preclinical literature using natural language processing (2021)Risk of bias assessment in pr…Creating efficiencies in the extraction of data from randomized trials: a prospective evaluation of a machine learning and text mining tool (2021)Creating efficiencies in the …Semi-Automated evidence synthesis in health psychology: current methods and future prospects (2020)Semi-Automated evidence synth…Generating (Factual?) Narrative Summaries of RCTs: Experiments with Neural Multi-Document Summarization (2020)Generating (Factual?) Narrati…Fact or Fiction: Verifying Scientific Claims (2020)Fact or Fiction: Verifying Sc…Machine learning to help researchers evaluate biases in clinical trials: a prospective, randomized user study (2019)Machine learning to help rese…Technology-assisted risk of bias assessment in systematic reviews: a prospective cross-sectional evaluation of the RobotReviewer machine learning tool (2017)Technology-assisted risk of b…Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework (2005)Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (2008)A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies (2009)Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group offers evidence-informed guidance to conduct rapid reviews (2020)Rapid Systematic Review: The Impact of Social Isolation and Loneliness on the Mental Health of Children and Adolescents in the Context of COVID-19 (2020)Scoping reviews: reinforcing and advancing the methodology and application (2021)Case Study Research: Design and Methods (1984)The theory of planned behavior (1991)Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses (2003)The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration (2009)PICO, PICOS and SPIDER: a comparison study of specificity and sensitivity in three search tools for qualitative systematic reviews (2014)PROBAST: A Tool to Assess the Risk of Bias and Applicability of Prediction Model Studies (2018)The Promise and Problems of Meta-Analysis (1997)META‐ANALYSIS OF MFT INTERVENTIONS (2003)The process of systematic review and its application in agri-food public-health (2006)Systematic literature reviews in software engineering—enhancement of the study selection process using Cohen’s Kappa statistic (2020)Meta-Analyses of Randomized Controlled Trials (1987)Meta-Analysis in Clinical Research (1987)Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence (2009)Problematic smartphone use: A conceptual overview and systematic review of relations with anxiety and depression psychopathology (2016)The COMET Handbook: version 1.0 (2017)Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews (2021)Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in included studies (2008)Systematic review automation technologies (2014)Recommendations for assessing the risk of bias in systematic reviews of health-care interventions (2017)Considering bias and conflicts of interest among the included studies (2019)Artificial intelligence and the conduct of literature reviews (2021)Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement (2009)Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement. (2009)The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration (2009)Interrater Reliability in Systematic Review Methodology: Exploring Variation in Coder Decision-Making (2018)A full systematic review was completed in 2 weeks using automation tools: a case study (2020)"Liar, Liar Pants on Fire": A New Benchmark Dataset for Fake News Detection (2017)HISTORIAE, History of Socio-Cultural Transformation as Linguistic Data Science. A Humanities Use Case (2019)Toward systematic review automation: a practical guide to using machine learning tools in research synthesis (2019)unarXive 2022: All arXiv Publications Pre-Processed for NLP, Including Structured Full-Text and Citation Network (2023)A Reasoning and Value Alignment Test to Assess Advanced GPT Reasoning (2024)Application of novel hybrid deep learning architectures combining Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN) and Recurrent Neural Networks (RNN): construction duration estimates prediction considering preconstruction uncertainties (2024)Systematic Reviews: Synthesis of Best Evidence for Clinical Decisions (1997)Assessing Risk of Bias in Included Studies (2008)Data extraction methods for systematic review (semi)automation: Update of a living systematic review (2023)Human-Comparable Sensitivity of Large Language Models in Identifying Eligible Studies Through Title and Abstract Screening: 3-Layer Strategy Using GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 for Systematic Reviews (2024)Inter-reviewer reliability of human literature reviewing and implications for the introduction of machine-assisted systematic reviews: a mixed-methods review (2024)Rayyan—a web and mobile app for systematic reviews (2016)Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines (2019)Artificial Intelligence and Automation in Evidence Synthesis: An Investigation of Methods Employed in Cochrane, Campbell Collaboration, and Environmental Evidence Reviews (2025)Data extraction methods for systematic review (semi)automation: Update of a living systematic review (2025)Testing the utility of GPT for title and abstract screening in environmental systematic evidence synthesis (2025)QUADAS-2: A Revised Tool for the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (2011)ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions (2016)RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials (2019)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 2011The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials33,776 cited
  • 2010Systematic reviews: CRD's guidance for undertaking reviews in health care3,245 cited
  • 2010Seventy-Five Trials and Eleven Systematic Reviews a Day: How Will We Ever Keep Up?1,185 cited
  • 2015A scoping review of rapid review methods1,145 cited
  • 2017Analysis of the time and workers needed to conduct systematic reviews of medical interventions using data from the PROSPERO registry733 cited
  • 2015RobotReviewer: evaluation of a system for automatically assessing bias in clinical trials316 cited
  • 1999Estimating Time to Conduct a Meta-analysis From Number of Citations Retrieved163 cited

Cited by

  • 2020Fact or Fiction: Verifying Scientific Claims380 cited
  • 2024Towards the automation of systematic reviews using natural language processing, machine learning, and deep learning: a comprehensive review87 cited
  • 2022Machine learning computational tools to assist the performance of systematic reviews: A mapping review85 cited
  • 2022Automating risk of bias assessment in systematic reviews: a real-time mixed methods comparison of human researchers to a machine learning system68 cited
  • 2023The use of artificial intelligence for automating or semi-automating biomedical literature analyses: A scoping review64 cited
  • 2017Technology-assisted risk of bias assessment in systematic reviews: a prospective cross-sectional evaluation of the RobotReviewer machine learning tool

Only edges whose both ends are imported exist here. Widen the year window, or show the whole map. Back to the work

54 cited
  • 2019Machine learning to help researchers evaluate biases in clinical trials: a prospective, randomized user study53 cited
  • 2020Generating (Factual?) Narrative Summaries of RCTs: Experiments with Neural Multi-Document Summarization44 cited
  • 2024Leveraging AI to improve evidence synthesis in conservation43 cited
  • 2021Risk of bias assessment in preclinical literature using natural language processing36 cited
  • 2020Semi-Automated evidence synthesis in health psychology: current methods and future prospects30 cited
  • 2021Creating efficiencies in the extraction of data from randomized trials: a prospective evaluation of a machine learning and text mining tool24 cited
  • 2025ASReview LAB v.2: Open-source text screening with multiple agents and a crowd of experts20 cited
  • 2024On the Use of Generative AI for Literature Reviews: An Exploration of Tools and Techniques20 cited
  • 2023Automating Quality Assessment of Medical Evidence in Systematic Reviews: Model Development and Validation Study18 cited
  • 2024Reproducibility and Data Storage for Active Learning-Aided Systematic Reviews18 cited