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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Chai, Kevin E. K., Lines, Robin L. J., Gucciardi, Daniel F., Ng, Leo
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