↓ Skip to main content

Rayyan—a web and mobile app for systematic reviews

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, December 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#35 of 2,240)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
4 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
policy
8 policy sources
twitter
81 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
10058 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
7454 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Rayyan—a web and mobile app for systematic reviews
Published in
Systematic Reviews, December 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13643-016-0384-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mourad Ouzzani, Hossam Hammady, Zbys Fedorowicz, Ahmed Elmagarmid

Abstract

Synthesis of multiple randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in a systematic review can summarize the effects of individual outcomes and provide numerical answers about the effectiveness of interventions. Filtering of searches is time consuming, and no single method fulfills the principal requirements of speed with accuracy. Automation of systematic reviews is driven by a necessity to expedite the availability of current best evidence for policy and clinical decision-making. We developed Rayyan ( http://rayyan.qcri.org ), a free web and mobile app, that helps expedite the initial screening of abstracts and titles using a process of semi-automation while incorporating a high level of usability. For the beta testing phase, we used two published Cochrane reviews in which included studies had been selected manually. Their searches, with 1030 records and 273 records, were uploaded to Rayyan. Different features of Rayyan were tested using these two reviews. We also conducted a survey of Rayyan's users and collected feedback through a built-in feature. Pilot testing of Rayyan focused on usability, accuracy against manual methods, and the added value of the prediction feature. The "taster" review (273 records) allowed a quick overview of Rayyan for early comments on usability. The second review (1030 records) required several iterations to identify the previously identified 11 trials. The "suggestions" and "hints," based on the "prediction model," appeared as testing progressed beyond five included studies. Post rollout user experiences and a reflexive response by the developers enabled real-time modifications and improvements. The survey respondents reported 40% average time savings when using Rayyan compared to others tools, with 34% of the respondents reporting more than 50% time savings. In addition, around 75% of the respondents mentioned that screening and labeling studies as well as collaborating on reviews to be the two most important features of Rayyan. As of November 2016, Rayyan users exceed 2000 from over 60 countries conducting hundreds of reviews totaling more than 1.6M citations. Feedback from users, obtained mostly through the app web site and a recent survey, has highlighted the ease in exploration of searches, the time saved, and simplicity in sharing and comparing include-exclude decisions. The strongest features of the app, identified and reported in user feedback, were its ability to help in screening and collaboration as well as the time savings it affords to users. Rayyan is responsive and intuitive in use with significant potential to lighten the load of reviewers.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 81 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 7,454 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Malaysia 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 7448 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 1098 15%
Student > Bachelor 768 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 716 10%
Researcher 609 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 341 5%
Other 1194 16%
Unknown 2728 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 1491 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 670 9%
Psychology 357 5%
Social Sciences 214 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 160 2%
Other 1537 21%
Unknown 3025 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 114. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 January 2024.
All research outputs
#370,967
of 25,562,515 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#35
of 2,240 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,498
of 417,572 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#2
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,562,515 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,240 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 417,572 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.