I usually use Zotero. I'll try to summarize their strengths and
weaknesses based on my experience.
The best:
-Free software. Continually evolving and complementary developments.
- Integration with the browser (Firefox only until yesterday). An
increasing percentage of our references comes from the Internet, so it
seems a natural way to work.
- Retrieves metadata from PDF. Just drag and drop the file into
Zotero, the program retrieves the file reference to an automatic query
on Google Scholar.
- Synchronize the references between all your PCs, Windows, Mac and
Linux. 100 mb of free space on the page Zotero allows you to store
references and attachments (screenshots,
associated notes, pdf files ...).
- Create collections of shared references to groups of researchers,
which may be public or by invitation.
-The collection of references can be public, and even open for
interested users subscribe to it in their own Zotero.
-They just create a standalone version (alpha version), with
compatibilitywith Safari and Chrome.
-Plugins that allow integration with Word or OpenOffice.
-Compatible with many types of formats of references.
-The program is translated into other languages. It has many video
tutorials, and a Web page with many explanations: www.zotero.org
-Stores locally-references, so that the Internet connection is not
essential.
Weaknesses:
-Perhaps it can be somewhat complex synchronization using reference
for new users.
-To save extensive libraries, we must resort to special payment
plans. You can also file references in private servers with the WebDAV
protocol. I have not tried the option of storing them in
Dropbox, but I read that is an option which limits somewhat the
possibilities of group work.
-These are necessary developments for smartphones. I think that
there are no appfor iphone or widgets in market Android for Zotero.
Overall I am very satisfied with the tool.
Sincerely,
Ernesto Barrera,
General Practitioner
Madrid (Spain)
El 15/01/2011 19:38, Ash Paul escribió:
> Dear Kev,
> You might like to read this correspondence in PLOS Medicine on the
> subject from Jan Brogger at the University of Bergen in 2007, in which
> he does agree with you but he also points to an open-source tool
> (JasRef) for assisting in systematic reviews:
>
> http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0040225
>
>
>
> CORRESPONDENCE
>
>
> Reporting of Systematic Reviews: Better Software Required
>
> *
> *
>
> *
> Citation: *Brogger J (2007) Reporting of Systematic Reviews: Better
> Software Required. PLoS Med 4(6): e225.
> doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0040225Jan Brogger
>
> *Published:* June 26, 2007
>
> *Copyright:* © 2007 Jan Brogger. This is an open-access article
> distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution
> License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and
> reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source
> are credited.
>
> *Funding:* The author received no specific funding for this article.
>
> *Competing interests:* The author has declared that no competing
> interests exist.
>
> Jan Brogger ([log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>)
>
> University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway
>
> This is an important paper and editorial [1
> <http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.0040225#pmed-0040255-b001>,2
> <http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.0040225#pmed-0040255-b002>].
> Systematic reviews should be much more widespread, and not only for
> randomized clinical trials of clinical treatments. A paper on an
> elegant piece of experimental data or on epidemiological observations
> would be made all the more interesting if the first table were a
> high-quality assessment of previous studies. In fact, I would suggest
> that performing a systematic review should be part of a research
> protocol for any subject, even before the study is initiated. However,
> this paper confirms my suspicion that the rising popularity of
> “systematic reviews” has not been followed by adherence to
> methodological rigor.
>
> With this background, I would like to point out one weakness that may
> explain part of the current quality deficit in some systematic
> reviews. There is a substantial lack of software that can assist in an
> important part of a systematic review: tracking literature searches
> and early phase screening. From browsing of the literature and
> communications with various Norwegian and Danish Cochrane
> collaborators (including the RevMan developers), there seems to be a
> limited number of tools for this use. Oftentimes, it is suggested that
> commercial reference management software be used, such as the popular
> EndNote. These types of software were not designed with systematic
> reviews in mind. At later stages of a review, Cochrane's RevMan is
> useful, but not early on.
>
> As far as I have been able to ascertain, there are only two tools
> presently available. The first is EPPI-Reviewer
> (http://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/cms/Default.aspx?t abid=184
> <http://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/cms/Default.aspx?tabid=184>), which is
> non-profit, but does not seem to be open source or available for local
> deployment. The second is TrialStat's SRS software
> (http://www.trialstat.com <http://www.trialstat.com/>), which is
> commercial and has a substantial price tag.
>
> I would therefore encourage researchers and institutions to contribute
> to the development of open-source tools for assisting in systematic
> reviews. I am currently writing such a simple tool, based on the
> open-source JabRef package (http://sourceforge.net/projects/jabref)
> and would welcome feedback on perceived needs and other similar projects.
>
>
> References
>
> 1. Moher D, Tetzlaff J, Tricco AC, Sampson M, Altman DG (2007)
> Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic
> reviews. PLoS Med 4: e78. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0040078
> <http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0040078>.
> 2. The /PLoS Medicine/ Editors (2007) Many reviews are systematic
> but some are more transparent and completely reported than
> others. PLoS Med 4: e147. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0040147
> <http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0040147>.
>
> *Ash *
> Dr Ash Paul
> Medical Director
> NHS Bedfordshire
> 21 Kimbolton Road
> Bedford
> MK40 2AW
> Tel no: 01234897224
> Email: [log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>_
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* k.hopayian <[log in to unmask]>
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Sent:* Sat, 15 January, 2011 22:35:29
> *Subject:* Re: Reference Management Software
>
> Hello Jo and all respondents,
> It has been an eye-opener to read about the different software options
> for managing documents but there are still two problems that you
> identified that have not been commented on.
>
> 1 On the the question of searches, I don't think that any
> bibliographic or document management software can do the kind of
> search you need for an SR. Several allow you to search from within the
> package but search strategies are limited. (I use Bookends, Mac only
> software, which searches Pubmed and downloads both citation and pdf).
> But I don't know of any that will search several databases and use the
> customised filters you need for an SR.
>
> 2 Turning to the question of managing records, I found the best way to
> do this for my recent SR was to set up a database of my own. This
> permitted me to record data such as: primary/secondary ref, language,
> include/exclude choice by each independent reviewer, reason for
> exclusion, final decision to include/exclude, a comments box, a
> checkbox (for flagging documents you want to return to) etc. This
> allows you to sort, search, create lists and write reports etc, just
> as any database should. I imported all the references into the data
> base after de-duplication. I created the database in Filemaker, a
> cross-platform software for Mac and PC. It is great but not cheap! It
> also good for producing lists and reports (e.g. list of excluded
> papers and the reasons, a list of papers that have been tagged for
> special interest).
>
> I can send a screen shot of the database individually to anyone
> interested to know what it looks like (on the understanding you
> forgive its chunky appearance - it was meant for personal use after
> all - and the fact that had I known then what I know now, I would have
> built it differently).
>
> Ta Ta For Now,
> Kev
>
> Dr Kev (Kevork) Hopayian, MD FRCGP
> General Practitioner, Leiston, Suffolk
> Hon Sen Lecturer, School of Medicine, Health Policy and Practice,
> University of East Anglia
> GP CPD Director, Suffolk
> [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> www.angliangp.org <http://www.angliangp.org>
> Making your practice evidence-based
> http://www.rcgp.org.uk/bookshop/info_1_9780850843316.html
>
> On 13 Jan 2011, at 10:28, Jo Jordan wrote:
>
> > My query is concerned with the practical aspects of conducting a
> > systematic review.
> >
> > I have had another frustrating week downloading and de-duplicating
> > results from a large systematic review search, using a combination of
> > RefWorks and Reference Manager. As usual I have come to the conclusion
> > that all these packages, while they each have their advantages, are
> > not designed for doing systematic reviews or large structured searches
> > that involve searching a number of databases.
> >
> > I have managed to find a way round these issues, but was wondering
> > what software packages other people use for this task and to see if
> > there is anything better out there.
> >
> > Many thanks,
> > Jo
> >
> > --
> >
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Jo Jordan
> > Research Information Manager
> > Arthritis Research UK Primary Care Centre
> > Primary Care Sciences
> > Keele University
> > Keele, UK
> > ST5 5BG
> > Email: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> > Website: http://www.keele.ac.uk/research/pchs/pcmrc/
> >
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
|
