Covidence is a web-based platform that streamlines the process of conducting a comprehensive literature review.
This includes systematic reviews*, scoping reviews, meta-syntheses, meta-narratives, and other types of literature reviews.
Covidence improves the efficiency and experience of creating systematic reviews by bundling citation screening, full-text review, risk of bias assessment, extraction of study characteristics and outcomes, and the exportation of data and references together on one platform.
Although Covidence is a particularly useful tool within the health sciences, its structure is not exclusive. It is multi-disciplinary and can be used within any academic discipline adopting an evidenced-based practice.
*Check out the Systematic Review & Evidence Synthesis Research Guide for more detailed information on what a systematic review is
Covidence improves evidence synthesis by enhancing the efficiency and experience of creating and maintaining systematic reviews.
According to Kellermeyer and Knight, "Covidence mirrors the multiphase review process, including data extraction, directly in its design. Citations neatly progress through each stage based on votes received. At every stage, reviewers can explicitly assign voting roles, including tie breaking, while maintaining blinding, which helps to minimize bias" (2018).
Covidence is easy to use and eliminates the technological drudgery of toggling between multiple windows while conducting a systematic review.
The Covidence website lists these advantages for using the Covidence platform:
Faster reviews - An average 35% reduction in time spent per review, saving an average of 71 hours per review.
Seamless collaboration - Enable the whole review team to collaborate from anywhere.
Suits all levels of experience and sectors - Suitable for reviewers in a variety of sectors including health, education, social science and many others.
The Covidence website also presents these user testimonials:
Kellermeyer, L., Harnke, B., & Knight, S. (2018). Covidence and Rayyan. Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA, 106(4), 580–583. https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2018.513