Cargando…
Successful incorporation of single reviewer assessments during systematic review screening: development and validation of sensitivity and work-saved of an algorithm that considers exclusion criteria and count
BACKGROUND: Accepted systematic review (SR) methodology requires citation screening by two reviewers to maximise retrieval of eligible studies. We hypothesized that records could be excluded by a single reviewer without loss of sensitivity in two conditions; the record was ineligible for multiple re...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8020619/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33820560 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-021-01632-6 |
_version_ | 1783674610555813888 |
---|---|
author | Nama, Nassr Hennawy, Mirna Barrowman, Nick O’Hearn, Katie Sampson, Margaret McNally, James Dayre |
author_facet | Nama, Nassr Hennawy, Mirna Barrowman, Nick O’Hearn, Katie Sampson, Margaret McNally, James Dayre |
author_sort | Nama, Nassr |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Accepted systematic review (SR) methodology requires citation screening by two reviewers to maximise retrieval of eligible studies. We hypothesized that records could be excluded by a single reviewer without loss of sensitivity in two conditions; the record was ineligible for multiple reasons, or the record was ineligible for one or more specific reasons that could be reliably assessed. METHODS: Twenty-four SRs performed at CHEO, a pediatric health care and research centre in Ottawa, Canada, were divided into derivation and validation sets. Exclusion criteria during abstract screening were sorted into 11 specific categories, with loss in sensitivity determined by individual category and by number of exclusion criteria endorsed. Five single reviewer algorithms that combined individual categories and multiple exclusion criteria were then tested on the derivation and validation sets, with success defined a priori as less than 5% loss of sensitivity. RESULTS: The 24 SRs included 930 eligible and 27390 ineligible citations. The reviews were mostly focused on pediatrics (70.8%, N=17/24), but covered various specialties. Using a single reviewer to exclude any citation led to an average loss of sensitivity of 8.6% (95%CI, 6.0–12.1%). Excluding citations with ≥2 exclusion criteria led to 1.2% average loss of sensitivity (95%CI, 0.5–3.1%). Five specific exclusion criteria performed with perfect sensitivity: conference abstract, ineligible age group, case report/series, not human research, and review article. In the derivation set, the five algorithms achieved a loss of sensitivity ranging from 0.0 to 1.9% and work-saved ranging from 14.8 to 39.1%. In the validation set, the loss of sensitivity for all 5 algorithms remained below 2.6%, with work-saved between 10.5% and 48.2%. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that targeted application of single-reviewer screening, considering both type and number of exclusion criteria, could retain sensitivity and significantly decrease workload. Further research is required to investigate the potential for combining this approach with crowdsourcing or machine learning methodologies. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13643-021-01632-6. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8020619 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-80206192021-04-06 Successful incorporation of single reviewer assessments during systematic review screening: development and validation of sensitivity and work-saved of an algorithm that considers exclusion criteria and count Nama, Nassr Hennawy, Mirna Barrowman, Nick O’Hearn, Katie Sampson, Margaret McNally, James Dayre Syst Rev Research BACKGROUND: Accepted systematic review (SR) methodology requires citation screening by two reviewers to maximise retrieval of eligible studies. We hypothesized that records could be excluded by a single reviewer without loss of sensitivity in two conditions; the record was ineligible for multiple reasons, or the record was ineligible for one or more specific reasons that could be reliably assessed. METHODS: Twenty-four SRs performed at CHEO, a pediatric health care and research centre in Ottawa, Canada, were divided into derivation and validation sets. Exclusion criteria during abstract screening were sorted into 11 specific categories, with loss in sensitivity determined by individual category and by number of exclusion criteria endorsed. Five single reviewer algorithms that combined individual categories and multiple exclusion criteria were then tested on the derivation and validation sets, with success defined a priori as less than 5% loss of sensitivity. RESULTS: The 24 SRs included 930 eligible and 27390 ineligible citations. The reviews were mostly focused on pediatrics (70.8%, N=17/24), but covered various specialties. Using a single reviewer to exclude any citation led to an average loss of sensitivity of 8.6% (95%CI, 6.0–12.1%). Excluding citations with ≥2 exclusion criteria led to 1.2% average loss of sensitivity (95%CI, 0.5–3.1%). Five specific exclusion criteria performed with perfect sensitivity: conference abstract, ineligible age group, case report/series, not human research, and review article. In the derivation set, the five algorithms achieved a loss of sensitivity ranging from 0.0 to 1.9% and work-saved ranging from 14.8 to 39.1%. In the validation set, the loss of sensitivity for all 5 algorithms remained below 2.6%, with work-saved between 10.5% and 48.2%. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that targeted application of single-reviewer screening, considering both type and number of exclusion criteria, could retain sensitivity and significantly decrease workload. Further research is required to investigate the potential for combining this approach with crowdsourcing or machine learning methodologies. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13643-021-01632-6. BioMed Central 2021-04-05 /pmc/articles/PMC8020619/ /pubmed/33820560 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-021-01632-6 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 | Research Nama, Nassr Hennawy, Mirna Barrowman, Nick O’Hearn, Katie Sampson, Margaret McNally, James Dayre Successful incorporation of single reviewer assessments during systematic review screening: development and validation of sensitivity and work-saved of an algorithm that considers exclusion criteria and count |
title | Successful incorporation of single reviewer assessments during systematic review screening: development and validation of sensitivity and work-saved of an algorithm that considers exclusion criteria and count |
title_full | Successful incorporation of single reviewer assessments during systematic review screening: development and validation of sensitivity and work-saved of an algorithm that considers exclusion criteria and count |
title_fullStr | Successful incorporation of single reviewer assessments during systematic review screening: development and validation of sensitivity and work-saved of an algorithm that considers exclusion criteria and count |
title_full_unstemmed | Successful incorporation of single reviewer assessments during systematic review screening: development and validation of sensitivity and work-saved of an algorithm that considers exclusion criteria and count |
title_short | Successful incorporation of single reviewer assessments during systematic review screening: development and validation of sensitivity and work-saved of an algorithm that considers exclusion criteria and count |
title_sort | successful incorporation of single reviewer assessments during systematic review screening: development and validation of sensitivity and work-saved of an algorithm that considers exclusion criteria and count |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8020619/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33820560 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-021-01632-6 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT namanassr successfulincorporationofsinglereviewerassessmentsduringsystematicreviewscreeningdevelopmentandvalidationofsensitivityandworksavedofanalgorithmthatconsidersexclusioncriteriaandcount AT hennawymirna successfulincorporationofsinglereviewerassessmentsduringsystematicreviewscreeningdevelopmentandvalidationofsensitivityandworksavedofanalgorithmthatconsidersexclusioncriteriaandcount AT barrowmannick successfulincorporationofsinglereviewerassessmentsduringsystematicreviewscreeningdevelopmentandvalidationofsensitivityandworksavedofanalgorithmthatconsidersexclusioncriteriaandcount AT ohearnkatie successfulincorporationofsinglereviewerassessmentsduringsystematicreviewscreeningdevelopmentandvalidationofsensitivityandworksavedofanalgorithmthatconsidersexclusioncriteriaandcount AT sampsonmargaret successfulincorporationofsinglereviewerassessmentsduringsystematicreviewscreeningdevelopmentandvalidationofsensitivityandworksavedofanalgorithmthatconsidersexclusioncriteriaandcount AT mcnallyjamesdayre successfulincorporationofsinglereviewerassessmentsduringsystematicreviewscreeningdevelopmentandvalidationofsensitivityandworksavedofanalgorithmthatconsidersexclusioncriteriaandcount |