Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering 2016
DOI: 10.1145/2915970.2916013
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Improvements in the StArt tool to better support the systematic review process

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
79
0
52

Year Published

2017
2017
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
5
4
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 167 publications
(131 citation statements)
references
References 7 publications
0
79
0
52
Order By: Relevance
“…The abstracts chosen were manually entered into the StArt software (State of the Art through Systematic Review), a tool to support systematic reviews in their planning, execution and final analysis of data (FABBRI et al, 2016). The descriptive analysis of the data was done using the StArt program, using the following analytical categories: type of methodology used (essay, experience report, qualitative research, quantitative research, mixed method research); Brazilian geopolitical region; target population; type of service (Psychosocial Care Center [CAPS], outpatient clinics, primary health care [ABS], long-term institution [ILPI], psychiatric hospital, general hospital, residential service [SRT], generic denomination service); types of practice (individual care, group care, therapeutic workshops, labor insertion, cultural actions, health education, matrix support strategy); presence of medical-clinical diagnosis; severity of mental disorder; origin of the abstract (Higher Education Institution or service); theoretical reference presented.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The abstracts chosen were manually entered into the StArt software (State of the Art through Systematic Review), a tool to support systematic reviews in their planning, execution and final analysis of data (FABBRI et al, 2016). The descriptive analysis of the data was done using the StArt program, using the following analytical categories: type of methodology used (essay, experience report, qualitative research, quantitative research, mixed method research); Brazilian geopolitical region; target population; type of service (Psychosocial Care Center [CAPS], outpatient clinics, primary health care [ABS], long-term institution [ILPI], psychiatric hospital, general hospital, residential service [SRT], generic denomination service); types of practice (individual care, group care, therapeutic workshops, labor insertion, cultural actions, health education, matrix support strategy); presence of medical-clinical diagnosis; severity of mental disorder; origin of the abstract (Higher Education Institution or service); theoretical reference presented.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The challenges coming along with this large design space were explicitly addressed in [52] in which we, based on a shared set of requirements, independently developed two tools-both realizations with different features emphasized and implementing different work and collaboration patterns. Over the years, few tools dedicated to support researchers performing systematic reviews have been proposed; notable examples are SLuRp [3], SESRA [35], and StArt [9]. These tools were analyzed in [32], yet those are not ranked with flying colors.…”
Section: Ref Key Contributionsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Thus, to aid the review and achieve better accuracy and reliability, the StArt tool (State of the Art through Systematic Reviews) was used. This tool has the purpose of supporting researchers in their systematic analysis [20][21][22].…”
Section: Execution Planmentioning
confidence: 99%