It’s impossible to summarise this publication any better than the RAND landing page which reports:

“Medical literature and the actions of policymakers have emphasized the importance of evidence-based medicine in recent years, but basing clinical practice on an exploding base of evidence is challenging. Systematic reviews, which are very resource-intensive, are a crucial channel in the pathway from medical literature to clinical practice. This thesis begins by estimating the value of one systematic review, finding that synthesized evidence regarding treatments to prevent osteoporotic fractures generated a net benefit of approximately $450M. Next, the time taken to screen articles in systematic reviews is analyzed, showing that user interface changes can result in significant reductions in resource requirements. Presenting multiple articles on one screen while reviewing titles leads to a seven-fold reduction in time taken per article. Experience and mental state are also related to screening times, with abstracts reviewed at ideal session lengths requiring 33% less time than those at the beginning of a session.