Posted on: April 23, 2025
What is Covidence?
The newest addition to the library’s suite of online tools and databases supporting TRU research is Covidence. Covidence was established in 2014 by Veritas Health Innovation Ltd., an Australian company. It is a not-for-profit web-based software and workflow platform (SaaS) that simplifies aggregating research articles gathered from multiple sources and creating systematic summaries of knowledge. Covidence stands for “Collaboration + Evidence”; it is an online tool that will support all types of evidence synthesis projects but is especially helpful for systematic and scoping reviews. The platform supports citation screening, full text review, risk of bias assessment, extraction of study characteristics and outcomes, and the export of data and references.
What are Systematic and Scoping Reviews?
One of the first recognized examples of a systematic review was conducted in 1753 by James Lind, who published a paper that aimed to provide a concise and unbiased summary of all available evidence on scurvy (Lind, 1753).
In 1972, Archie Cochrane published a textbook titled “Effectiveness and Efficiency: Random Reflections on Health Service” (1972). Cochrane highlighted the importance of synthesizing randomized control trials for determining the effectiveness of health treatments. This led to a tremendous movement in the health sciences to use research syntheses to inform health policy decisions and clinical practice. Groups such as the Cochrane Collaboration and the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) emerged in the 1990s, providing leadership in medicine and nursing on evidence-based practice rooted in systematic review methodology. Since then, this methodology has found a place in many other fields, including education, social sciences, psychology, forestry, engineering and more.
In a systematic review, a researcher sets out to address a clearly defined question by consolidating all available evidence. The process involves multiple stages, including developing a clearly articulated research question; searching for all retrievable studies that relate to the question; screening those studies to see how well they match the question; assessing the quality of the studies; extracting the data from the studies; analyzing and synthesizing the study data; and reporting on the synthesized findings (see for example Higgins et al., 2024; Zawacki-Richter et al, 2020; Carlsson et al., 2024) In more recent times, evidence synthesis efforts have also resulted in development of the scoping review. Scoping reviews are similar to systematic reviews as they follow a structured process but do have some key methodological differences. They are helpful for determining the scope or coverage of a body of literature on a given topic and give clear indication of the volume of literature and studies available. They report on the types of published literature and the way the research has been conducted (Munn et al, 2018)
Why You’ll Love It
Covidence will help you or a team work collaboratively on an evidence synthesis by facilitating:
- Import of citations from multiple bibliographic sources: Import references from key databases such as CINAHL, SCOPUS, Web of Science, and more. Quickly rid your citation set of duplicates and track the unique citations found in each database.
- Filtering to RCTs: If desired, filter out studies that are not Randomized Controlled Trials
- Screening titles and abstracts: Breeze through screening with keyword highlighting & a lightning-quick interface. Covidence keeps full records of who voted and also supports single or dual screeners.
- Uploading PDFs to match screened citations: Transfer PDFs stored in your reference manager or desktop to Covidence in a few clicks. Covidence also automatically uploads open-access studies for full-text review.
- Screening full-text studies: Decide quickly on studies in full text by highlighting key words or phrases. Capture reasons for exclusion and any notes so you can resolve any disagreements quickly, with a click of a button.
- Completing data extraction: Save time and reduce re-works with the flexibility to create custom templates to suit your needs, extract your data however you need it, and keep everyone on the same page during the process.
- Assessing risk of bias: Automatically populate your risk of bias tables by highlighting and commenting on text directly in your PDF. No more cut and paste.
- Exporting for Statistical Analysis: Export a single, machine-readable file that easily integrates into all the common statistics packages, so you can continue your review in your preferred software.
How to Access Covidence
Visit the Covidence entry in the library’s Database A-Z list. Follow the detailed instructions provided by the library for creating an account on Covidence. Information is also provided on how to set up a review that includes multiple team members.
Need Help?
Covidence offers monthly training webinars (registration required), along with 24-hour methodological or technical support at support@covidence.org. Covidence Academy is also a great resource containing useful ‘How to’ guides, step-by-step videos on Covidence features, and helpful links to additional resources. Their Knowledge Base can help you get started with Covidence, or you can refer to their online video tutorials for assistance.
References
Carlsson R, Batinović L, Hyltse N, Kalmendal A, Nordström T, & Topor M (2024). A Beginner’s Guide to Open and Reproducible Systematic Reviews in Psychology. Collabra: Psychology, 10(1).
Cochrane AL (1972). Effectiveness and efficiency: random reflections on health services. London: Nuffield Provincial Hospitals Trust.
Lind J (1753). A treatise on the scurvy. In three parts. Containing an inquiry into the nature, causes, and cure, of that disease. London, A. Millar
Higgins JP, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA, editor(s) (2024). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.
Munn Z, Peters MD, Stern C, Tufanaru C, McArthur A, & Aromataris E (2018). Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC medical research methodology, 18, 1-7.
Zawacki-Richter O, Kerres M, Bedenlier S, Bond M, & Buntins K (2020). Systematic reviews in educational research: Methodology, perspectives and application (p. 161). Springer Nature.
