Topic
Item no.
Checklist item
Reported on page #
TITLE
Title
1
Identify the article as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.
Page 1
ABSTRACT
Structured abstract
2
Present a structured summary including, if applicable: basic context of the scientific work (theoretical framework), objectives, data source, eligibility criteria, participants, interventions, summary of the methods, study evaluation; transparency of the study methods (critical evaluation), results, limitations, conclusions and implications of the main findings; and systematic review registration number.
Page 1
INTRODUCTION
Rationale
3
Describe the rationale for the review in the context of the state-of-the-art.
The increasing use of 3D printers in the production environment on small, medium, or large scales has increased the complexity and made it necessary to address the high demands for pieces and AM machines for work allocation. These demands often differ because of some indicators such as delivery time. Various authors in this area of research have proposed mathematical models to describe these specific cases and fast algorithms to solve the problem to face such challenges and aid managers in making decisions as assertively as possible quickly.
Objectives
4
Provide an explicit statement about the issues addressed regarding participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).
Page 4:“The present study aims at conducting a systematic literature review (SLR) to solve scheduling problems in AM for identifying models most commonly used by authors and their main characteristics, in addition to collecting data on algorithms and on the response and neighborhood exploration structures and understanding how computational experiments are performed and algorithms compared.”
METHODS
Protocol and registration
5
Indicate whether a review protocol was followed, if and where this protocol can be accessed (for example, e-mail address), and, if available, provide information about the review record, including the registration number
Not applicable
Eligibility criteria
6
Specify study characteristics (for example, PEAKS, extent of follow-up) and reporting characteristics (for example, publication interval (years), language, whether published) used as eligibility criteria, providing a justification.
Page 5:“(...) this research aimed at finding studies on the production scheduling problem involving AM technologies.During the initial search analysis, several studies focusing on only the nesting subproblem were identified, which included decoupling production scheduling from piece positioning (for example, see Bennell & Oliveira, 2008). Studies exclusively focused on nesting problems were disregarded in the analysis because the present study is focused on the integration between production scheduling and piece positioning.All articles that included the selected terms in their title, abstract, or keywords were listed by the platforms. In addition, only full articles published in journals were considered in the search (...)”
Sources of information
7
Describe all sources of information in the search (for example, database with dates of coverage, contact with authors to identify additional studies) and date of the last search.
Page 5: “Three databases were selected to search for articles: (1) Engineering Village, was selected because this search platform provides access to the databases of engineering articles and patents (Elsevier, 2020). The databases of (2) Web of Science and (3) SciELO were selected because the index articles of multidisciplinary areas are considered two of the largest and most used databases for bibliometric studies (Marsilio et al., 2011). (...) All articles found until August 2021 were included in the search because this is a recent topic in both the industry and the academy.”
METHODS
Search
8
Present the complete electronic search strategy for at le ast one database, including the limits used so that it can be repeated.
Page 5: “additive manufacturing” AND “scheduling”
Study selection
9
Introduce the study selection process (that is, search, eligibility, those included in the systematic review, and, if applicable, those included in the meta-analysis).
Page 5-6
Data collection process
10
Describe the method for extracting data from articles (for example, pilot, independent, and duplicate search) and all processes for gathering and confirming data from studies.
Not applicable
List of data
11
List and define all variables retrieved from the data (for example, PEAKS, funding sources) and any assumptions or simplifications made.
Not applicable
Risk of bias in each study
12
Describe the methods used to assess the risk of bias in each study (including specifying whether the risk was assessed during the study or at the outcome level), and how this information was used in data analysis.
Not applicable
Summary measures
13
Define key measures for summarizing results (for example, relative risk, and mean difference).
Not applicable
Synthesis of results
14
Describe methods for data analysis and combination of study results, if performed, including consistency measures (for example, I2) for each meta-analysis.
Not applicable
Risk of bias between studies
15
Specify any assessment of the risk of bias that may affect cumulative evidence (for example publication bias and selective reporting across studies)
Not applicable
Additional analyses
16
Describe additional analysis methods (for example, sensitivity or subgroup analysis, and meta-regression), if performed, indicating which were pre-specified.
Not applicable
RESULTS
Study selection
17
Present the numbers of studies screened, evaluated for eligibility and included in the review and the reasons for excluding a study at each stage, preferably via a flowchart.
Page 5: Figure 1
Study characteristics
18
For each study, present characteristics for data extraction (for example, study size, PEAKS, follow-up period) and present the citations.
Not applicable
Risk of bias between studies
19
Present data on the risk of bias in each study and, if available, any assessment of outcomes (see item 12).
Not applicable
Results from individual studies
20
For all considered outcomes (benefits or risks), present for each study:(a) a simple summary of data for each intervention group and (b) estimated effects and confidence intervals, preferably using forest plots.
Not applicable
Synthesis of results
21
Present results for each meta-analysis performed, including confidence intervals and consistency measures.
Not applicable
Risk of bias between studies
22
Present the results of the assessment of the risk of bias between studies (see item 15).
Not applicable
Additional analyses
23
Present results of additional analyses, if performed (for example, sensitivity analysis or subgroups, meta-regression [see item 16]).
Not applicable
DISCUSSION
Evidence summary
24
Summarize the main results, including the strength of evidence for each result; consider its rele vance to key groups (for example, healthcare professionals, users and policymakers).
Page 15: Table 3; Page 20: Table 4
Limitations
25
Discuss limitations at the study and outcome (for example, risk of bias) and review (for example, incomplete identification of research studies, reporting of bias) levels.
Not applicable
Conclusions
26
Present the general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence and implications for future research.
Pages 23–24
FUNDING
Funding
27
Describe funding sources for the systematic review and other support (for example, data), and the role of funders in the systematic review.
The São Paulo Research Foundation (Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo – FAPESP) - usually included in the list of journals as FAPESP, in Portuguesegrant number #2019/12023-1National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico – CNPq) - Grant 405702/2021-3
Scheduling for Additive Manufacturing: a literature review
Thumbnail
