Cargando…
Research Screener: a machine learning tool to semi-automate abstract screening for systematic reviews
BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses provide the highest level of evidence to help inform policy and practice, yet their rigorous nature is associated with significant time and economic demands. The screening of titles and abstracts is the most time consuming part of the review process w...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8017894/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33795003 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-021-01635-3 |
_version_ | 1783674137991970816 |
---|---|
author | Chai, Kevin E. K. Lines, Robin L. J. Gucciardi, Daniel F. Ng, Leo |
author_facet | Chai, Kevin E. K. Lines, Robin L. J. Gucciardi, Daniel F. Ng, Leo |
author_sort | Chai, Kevin E. K. |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses provide the highest level of evidence to help inform policy and practice, yet their rigorous nature is associated with significant time and economic demands. The screening of titles and abstracts is the most time consuming part of the review process with analysts required review thousands of articles manually, taking on average 33 days. New technologies aimed at streamlining the screening process have provided initial promising findings, yet there are limitations with current approaches and barriers to the widespread use of these tools. In this paper, we introduce and report initial evidence on the utility of Research Screener, a semi-automated machine learning tool to facilitate abstract screening. METHODS: Three sets of analyses (simulation, interactive and sensitivity) were conducted to provide evidence of the utility of the tool through both simulated and real-world examples. RESULTS: Research Screener delivered a workload saving of between 60 and 96% across nine systematic reviews and two scoping reviews. Findings from the real-world interactive analysis demonstrated a time saving of 12.53 days compared to the manual screening, which equates to a financial saving of USD 2444. Conservatively, our results suggest that analysts who scan 50% of the total pool of articles identified via a systematic search are highly likely to have identified 100% of eligible papers. CONCLUSIONS: In light of these findings, Research Screener is able to reduce the burden for researchers wishing to conduct a comprehensive systematic review without reducing the scientific rigour for which they strive to achieve. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13643-021-01635-3. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8017894 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-80178942021-04-05 Research Screener: a machine learning tool to semi-automate abstract screening for systematic reviews Chai, Kevin E. K. Lines, Robin L. J. Gucciardi, Daniel F. Ng, Leo Syst Rev Methodology BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses provide the highest level of evidence to help inform policy and practice, yet their rigorous nature is associated with significant time and economic demands. The screening of titles and abstracts is the most time consuming part of the review process with analysts required review thousands of articles manually, taking on average 33 days. New technologies aimed at streamlining the screening process have provided initial promising findings, yet there are limitations with current approaches and barriers to the widespread use of these tools. In this paper, we introduce and report initial evidence on the utility of Research Screener, a semi-automated machine learning tool to facilitate abstract screening. METHODS: Three sets of analyses (simulation, interactive and sensitivity) were conducted to provide evidence of the utility of the tool through both simulated and real-world examples. RESULTS: Research Screener delivered a workload saving of between 60 and 96% across nine systematic reviews and two scoping reviews. Findings from the real-world interactive analysis demonstrated a time saving of 12.53 days compared to the manual screening, which equates to a financial saving of USD 2444. Conservatively, our results suggest that analysts who scan 50% of the total pool of articles identified via a systematic search are highly likely to have identified 100% of eligible papers. CONCLUSIONS: In light of these findings, Research Screener is able to reduce the burden for researchers wishing to conduct a comprehensive systematic review without reducing the scientific rigour for which they strive to achieve. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13643-021-01635-3. BioMed Central 2021-04-01 /pmc/articles/PMC8017894/ /pubmed/33795003 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-021-01635-3 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Methodology Chai, Kevin E. K. Lines, Robin L. J. Gucciardi, Daniel F. Ng, Leo Research Screener: a machine learning tool to semi-automate abstract screening for systematic reviews |
title | Research Screener: a machine learning tool to semi-automate abstract screening for systematic reviews |
title_full | Research Screener: a machine learning tool to semi-automate abstract screening for systematic reviews |
title_fullStr | Research Screener: a machine learning tool to semi-automate abstract screening for systematic reviews |
title_full_unstemmed | Research Screener: a machine learning tool to semi-automate abstract screening for systematic reviews |
title_short | Research Screener: a machine learning tool to semi-automate abstract screening for systematic reviews |
title_sort | research screener: a machine learning tool to semi-automate abstract screening for systematic reviews |
topic | Methodology |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8017894/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33795003 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-021-01635-3 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT chaikevinek researchscreeneramachinelearningtooltosemiautomateabstractscreeningforsystematicreviews AT linesrobinlj researchscreeneramachinelearningtooltosemiautomateabstractscreeningforsystematicreviews AT gucciardidanielf researchscreeneramachinelearningtooltosemiautomateabstractscreeningforsystematicreviews AT ngleo researchscreeneramachinelearningtooltosemiautomateabstractscreeningforsystematicreviews |