A key step in the process of systematic review is citation screening, which involves manual review of study report titles and abstracts to identify potentially eligible articles for inclusion in the review [3]. 1947, 18: 50-60. The objectively generated Screen2Go timings were numerically lower than the other three modalities. A set of citations retrieved from a search conducted for the purpose of updating a single Cochrane systematic review, ‘hypothermia for traumatic brain injury’ [9], was used as the citation dataset. Assess need for a systematic review 2. There are some limitations to this study. Screening decisions were dichotomised for analysis by collapsing ‘include’ and ‘unsure’ assignments into a single category since, in practice, both would be carried forward for further consideration after title and abstract screening. BMC Med Res Methodol. Dunn OJ: Multiple comparisons among means. Sensitivity of screening decisions was improved with the use of ReGroup, a web-based systematic review platform, but were otherwise similar across the four modalities studied. We examined the relationship between final sensitivity and screening time for the Screen2Go objective timings by calculating the Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient [14]. Medical students were randomly allocated to title and abstract screening using one of the four modalities and required to screen 650 citations from a single systematic review update. Medical students were randomly allocated to title and abstract screening using one of the four modalities. Int J Environ Res Public Health. Kruskal-Wallis tests indicated a significant difference between at least one modality for final sensitivity (p =0.015) but not for specificity (p =0.147). Systematic reviews are vital to the pursuit of evidence-based medicine within healthcare. Chernoff H, Lehmann EL: The use of maximum likelihood estimates in χ2 tests for goodness of fit. The Screen2Go program recorded time taken directly by tracking the time during which the software was being used for screening by participants. As with other screening tests, screening sensitivity is of greater importance than specificity to ensure relevant studies are not missed. Article Medical students are a feasible population to engage in citation screening. A resource for identifying tools to support systematic reviews. Specificity ranged from 93.2% to 97.4% with the lowest specificity seen with the web-based platform. 2018;15(157):1–12 pmid:29351207 . The centre line in each box is the median value. Students were offered a double movie ticket and a certificate of participation for their involvement. Correspondence to There are several potential reasons for the modest and variable overall performance of medical students’ ability to select relevant articles in this study, when compared to the review authors’ decisions. In our study, primary outcomes are presented as a complete case analysis as this study was a pilot study assessing the feasibility of engaging medical students in citation screening and this approach to analysis is commonly employed in studies of this type. Covidence is an online systematic review management tool that allows for independent title/abstract screening, full text screening, data extraction and risk of bias assessment. The editorial process and requirements for title registration of systematic reviews of DTA are different from those used for the Cochrane systematic reviews of interventions. This may lead to efficiency gains and is consistent with the efforts to broaden the involvement of stakeholders in the production and use of evidence synthesis. Systematic reviews … A recent overview of systematic reviews, on diabetes and hypertension screening programmes, found that there is a need for a systematic review to assess the effectiveness and impact of various screening interventions. 10.4103/2229-3485.83221. Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, 3168, Australia, National Trauma Research Institute, 85-89 Commercial Rd, Melbourne, VIC, 3004, Australia, Veronica Pitt, Ornella Clavisi & Russell Gruen, Global eHealth Unit, Imperial College London, South Kensington Campus, London, SW7 2AZ, UK, World Vision Australia, 1 Vision Drive, Burwood East, Melbourne, VIC, 3151, Australia, Department of Infectious Diseases, Alfred Hospital and Monash University, 2nd Floor, Burnet Tower, Alfred Hospital, Commercial Road, Melbourne, VIC, 3004, Australia, Australasian Cochrane Centre, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, 99 Commercial Road, Melbourne, VIC, 3004, Australia, You can also search for this author in Screening burden varied from 5.3% to 10.8% (Figure 2c). Future work should explore the effect of different forms of training and support on participant performance. This tutorial introduces systematic reviews and explains the steps to a systematic review. The study was designed as a pilot study and the sample size limits the power of the study to detect small, but relevant differences. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. Google Scholar, Institute of Medicine: Finding What Works in Health Care: Standards for Systematic Reviews. The review team worked with a librarian specialized in systematic reviews to construct search strategies for MEDLINE and Embase (see Supplementary material for search strategy). Amer J Psychol. It uses tagging and filtering to code and organise references. RG participated in the design of the study and drafting the manuscript. Participants in the ReGroup modality demonstrated the highest median sensitivity and the lowest specificity. KH designed the mobile screening application, Screen2Go, and participated in the study’s statistical analysis and drafting of the manuscript. The numbers of students correctly selecting each study ranged from 1 (2%, for Smith 2012) to 53 (91%, for Harris 2009). Locate studies 7. Information for Indigenous Australians, You can create your own PRISMA chart using this online, https://guides.lib.monash.edu/systematic-review, Case Study - Starting - Developing a question, Case Study - Starting - Developing criteria, Case Study - Searching - Developing a search strategy, Case Study - Searching - Documenting and managing search results, Case Study - Analysis - Screening and Applying Criteria, Module 4: Selecting studies and collecting data. Spearman’s rho for rank correlation between final sensitivity and total screening times showed a weak positive correlation (rho =0.342) not significantly different from 0 (p =0.452). Methods: A five-member group of physicians performed a systematic review and meta-analysis on light at night and breast cancer risk using Medline and Embase (January to March 2011). Versions are provided in several formats: 1) either combining title and abstract screening together, or separately as title then abstract level assessments; 2) for systematic mapping or systematic review, depending on which method is used; 3) in live, editable HTML format for web-based editing, or in .Rhtml format for those comfortable with basic coding in R. Covidence is an online systematic review program developed by, and for, systematic reviewers.It can import citations from reference managers like EndNote, facilitate the screening of abstracts and full-text, populate risk of bias tables, assist with data extraction, and export to all common formats. If the Kruskal-Wallis test showed no significant difference between groups, then pairwise comparisons were not performed. Whiskers represent the minimum and maximum values and boxes delimit quartile ranges. There was no significant difference in performance between the other three modalities. The continuing exponential growth in published biomedical research presents a daunting challenge for clinicians and others involved in health care [1]. Ethics approval for the project was obtained from the Monash University Human Research Ethics Committee (CF 12/1398-2012000738). EPPI-Reviewer 4 is software for all types of literature review, including systematic reviews, meta-analyses, 'narrative' reviews and meta-ethnographies. The first stage of this is usually based on titles and abstracts, then a full text analysis follows before data extraction. Gupta SK: Intention-to-treat concept: a review. Title/abstract & full-text review The Systematic Review Process systematic review. volume 3, Article number: 121 (2014) Panel (c) shows the burden for each modality calculated using those study reports retained at screening by expert reviewers as the reference standard. Time to screen 650 citations was also highly variable, but did not differ significantly between groups and was not associated with screening sensitivity. The file illustrates the variable amount and clarity of information between citations. Google Scholar. How Systematic Review Software Makes Screening Easier. A randomisation schedule was created using Microsoft Excel (Microsoft Corp., Redmond, WA, USA) by an independent investigator. The Cochrane Library. Julian H Elliott. The Monash University Faculty of Medicine distributed an invitation email to a convenience sample of the 1,148 eligible medical students with an explanatory statement to eligible participants using student email lists. To compensate for multiple comparisons, we used a sequential Bonferroni correction [13] to adjust a pre-specified significance level of 5%. 1961, 56 (293): 52-64. This module teaches you how to work out systematically and fairly which studies meet your criteria, and approaches for collecting different data types and formats from studies. Students may have received some previous training in the management of traumatic brain injury, but the gap between their knowledge and that of the review authors is likely to have been substantial. To add a Screening View: (PDF 38 KB). No further support was provided other than the one-page summary of the systematic review protocol with inclusion criteria. Mann HB, Whitney DR: On a test of whether one of two random variables is stochastically larger than the other. Participants in the EndNote, ReGroup and Paper screening groups were requested to self-report the time taken to screen the 650 citations. We therefore conducted pairwise comparison of sensitivity, but not specificity, between the EndNote modality and the other methods. The semi-automation of title and abstract screening: a retrospective exploration of ways to leverage Abstrackr's relevance predictions in systematic and rapid reviews. 2011, 2 (3): 109-112. Systematic review on women's values and preferences concerning breast cancer screening and diagnostic services. There are two types of screening 1: Screening the title and abstract of search results The searches are sensitive it means you will get lots of noise and irrelevant results. Kashim RM, Newton P, Ojo O. Diabetic Retinopathy Screening: A Systematic Review on Patients ‘ Non-Attendance. Ng, L., Pitt, V., Huckvale, K. et al. Data were summarised using box-and-whisker plots with whiskers denoting minimum and maximum observed values, boxes delineating quartile ranges and, separately, data points indicating within-group means. Title: Describe your manuscript and state whether it is a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both. This may have encouraged students to complete the screening as quickly as possible, without regard to the accuracy of their decisions. Systematic Reviews Horton J, Vandermeer B, Hartling L, Tjosvold L, Klassen TP, Buscemi N: Systematic review data extraction: cross-sectional study showed that experience did not increase accuracy. Eighteen participants did not complete screening and were not included in the analysis, leaving 58 participants with evaluable data. PubMed Burden is a measure of workload that captures the proportion of all citations that need to be reviewed once screening is completed. Compared to the EndNote modality, ReGroup sensitivity was significantly higher (p =0.005, required significance level after correction =0.017). The machine learning technology permits reviewers to screen roughly half of the set of citations imported for a given review, and then let the software automatically exclude a (hopefully large) portion of the remaining citations; the reviewers will then only need to screen the articles classified as relevant by the software. Cite this article. Screen2Go [8], an iOS mobile citation screening application. Within-group median final sensitivity ranged from 46.7% to 66.7% (Figure 2a) and median screening specificity ranged from 93.2% to 97.4% (Figure 2b). For example, the title and abstract of Fraser 2011 (refer to Additional file 2) presents information indicating this is a potential included study, but 80% of students screened this study out. Screening Results. Plots (a) and (b) show the distribution of final sensitivities (a) and screening specificities (b) observed in each screening modality as well as the overall pooled distribution, using those study reports ultimately retained in the review update after full-text review as the reference standard. Although authors of previous reports have outlined different SDOH screening tools used among children in clinical settings, 13,14 there has been no systematic review of SDOH screeners used among children in various settings. Participants were provided with an explanatory statement detailing the study and its purpose. Students’ screening performance was modest and highly variable and opportunities exist for improvement with different incentive structures, training and support and alternative analytical approaches. Students in the EndNote, Paper and ReGroup screening groups had median (range) self-reported total screening times of 3 h 30 min (range 01:50–08:00), 3 h 7 min and 30 s (range 02:20–06:41) and 3 h 30 min (range 02:50–07:50), respectively, equivalent to median screening times of 19 (range 10–40), 17 (range 12–37) and 19 s (range 13–41) per citation. Whilst previous studies have assessed the effect of experience on the accuracy of data extraction [5], there is no empirical evidence regarding the performance of non-expert groups in citation screening or the optimal approaches to support their contributions. No participant identified all 14 articles selected for inclusion in the review. View Article PubMed/NCBI Google Scholar 32. von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC VJSI. Citation screening is time-consuming yet a crucial aspect of the systematic review process, since failure to identify relevant studies can jeopardise the validity of a review. Results are then co Screen2Go captured objective timing information but included safeguards to discard timings when it was unclear if the device was being used for screening or not. Terms and Conditions, All student participants were required to have access to an iOS device (iPhone, iPod Touch or iPad), in addition to a computer with Internet access. Using technology frees up more resources and makes the review process faster and more cost-effective. 10.1002/sim.1190. When reviewing the final search results from your chosen databases (and other sources if relevant), multiple reviewers (you and your supervisors or co-reviewers) will make decisions on which articles to include and exclude based on the criteria specified in your protocol. Future studies should investigate the effect of incentive systems, training and support and analytical methods on screening performance. Similarly, if we are dual screening, how do we know that both s… Users click on buttons placed next to each citation to indicate whether they have assessed the citation as potentially relevant or not. One approach to improving the timeliness and efficiency of systematic review production in order to maximise its relevancy to clinicians and policymakers is to extend the population of contributors beyond traditional review authors. This may have been due to the improved efficiency of using a phone-based application or over-estimation of screening time with self-report. Edwards P, Clarke M, DiGuiseppi C, Pratap S, Roberts I, Wentz R: Identification of randomized controlled trials in systematic reviews: accuracy and reliability of screening records. Abstrackr semi-automates citation screening by predicting relevant records. Step 1: Title/abstract screening. Participants were given an additional option of marking any citation falling broadly within the parameters of the review or containing insufficient information to make a firm decision as ‘unsure’. TITLE. OC and TT designed the web-based systematic review program, ReGroup, and assisted in drafting the manuscript. It is increasingly difficult for health care decision-makers to find and appraise research evidence, leading to lost opportunities to translate research investment into health care practice improvement [2] and reducing their utility for clinicians and policymakers. Furthermore, the study was conducted on an update to a review that the review authors had originally conducted, which may have contributed to their expertise on the specific topic of the review. Time taken to screen was measured across the four intervention groups to compare efficiency between the four modalities. OC, TT, RG and JHE are the creators of the web-based systematic review program, ReGroup. (PDF 44 KB), Additional file 2: Title and abstract of Fraser 2011 and Harris 2009. Scan just the titles and abstracts to remove studies that are clearly not related to the topic. The latest tools added to the toolbox are posted to twitter. JE conceived the study, participated in its coordination and design and assisted in drafting the manuscript. The study ran from June to August 2012. Screening is an elimination process that is done through the review of article titles and abstracts to determine if the study described meets any of the exclusion criteria. Develop a research question 4. Below are the links to the authors’ original submitted files for images. Medical students may be an appropriate group to engage in citation screening for systematic reviews in health care. If the reason is not recorded, someone revisiting that decision in the future will have to reengineer the exclusion decision (e.g. There are two stages to screening and selecting results to be included in the review. Many results can be excluded in the first screening stage, which involves scanning the title and abstract of articles for relevance to the topic. Various types of software can be used to store citations and do the screening: A PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analyses) diagram is used to show the steps involved in the review process, as well as recording the number of articles excluded at each stage. We used a chi-squared test [10] to compare completion rates in each of the four modalities. 13 This review aims to address this gap in the literature, with a specific focus on evidence from resource-limited countries, where the behavioural and socioeconomic … The proportion of participants completing the screening task was numerically higher in the ReGroup and Paper groups. This may be related to the ease of initiation of screening. J Am Stat Assoc. Presumably, there are many reasons for excluding an abstract. PubMed Central The Processing folder can be helpful for making sure you've processed all content before screeners begin. The EndNote and Screen2Go groups required specific downloading instructions to access the screening programs. Title and Abstract Screening and Evaluation in Systematic Reviews (TASER): a pilot randomised controlled trial of title and abstract screening by medical students. 10.2307/1412159. Cookies policy. No significant difference was seen between groups (p =0.053). Systematic reviews should be conducted and published by a team of two or more reviewers. We performed a pilot study of citation screening by medical students using four screening methods and compared students’ performance to experienced review authors. Provide a descriptive title for the systematic review. Login details were emailed to participants randomised to ReGroup, who then simply needed to click on a web link and could immediately commence screening. The eligibility screening step of a systematic review or systematic map (which may also be referred to as ‘study selection’, ‘evidence selection’ or ‘inclusion screening’) involves the application of eligibility criteria that determine which of the primary research studies identified in searches are relevant for answering the review or map question; and the use of a systematic screening process for applying … These results may therefore not be generalisable to other forms of review activity, such as full-text review or data extraction or to other groups of potential screeners, such as affected individuals and families. PubMed Picture 4 – Article screening in Rayyan software. Simple descriptive statistics was used to summarise the distribution of observed performance by screening modality. The aims of this pilot randomised controlled trial were to provide preliminary data on the accuracy of title and abstract screening by medical students, and on the effect of screening modality on screening accuracy and efficiency. The production of high quality systematic reviews requires rigorous methods that are time-consuming and resource intensive. Students in the hard copy print-out group received the citations via post and were provided with highlighters to allocate citations. Assemble the systematic review team 3. The authors thank Emma Sydenham and Dr. Phil Alderson for their contribution as the authors of the systematic review update used in the study. Rayyan is a free online tool that anyone can use for screening and coding of studies in a Systematic Review. The figure summarises the distribution of responses across all students against the 14 citations that were ultimately retained into the review update after review of full text by the expert reviewers. 2011, Clavisi O, Turner T, Thomas J, Cavedon L: Development of a Web Based Software Tool to Improve Efficiency and User Experience of Systematic Reviews. Firstly, we trialled a minimalist and easily scalable model where students did not receive any training in citation screening as part of the study. statement and These are optional. 1952, 47 (260): 583-621. The use of ReGroup, a web-based systematic review platform, was associated with improved final sensitivity and lower screening sensitivity. Student screening performance by modality. This is the webpage for the Cochrane Screening and Diagnostic Tests Methods Group (SDTM). J Clin Epidemiol. As a result, complete timing information was available for only seven of the ten participants in this modality. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.04.007. Discover how to do a systematic review in less time, while maintaining quality and accuracy. By using this website, you agree to our All study participants received this file at the commencement of the study to provide background on the systematic review and inclusion criteria for relevant citations. Stat Med. We performed a complete case analysis of all participants who completed screening. Manage cookies/Do not sell my data we use in the preference centre. Screening specificity and burden were calculated for each participant from the confusion matrix of their screening decisions against the consensus screening decisions of the expert reviewers. Students enrolled in a Bachelor of Medicine and Surgery at Monash University, Melbourne, Australia in third year and above, or undertaking a research year as part of a Bachelor of Medical Science were eligible for inclusion in the study. Participants in the design of the four modalities simultaneously received systematic review title screening citations via post and recruited... Screening: a systematic review platform, which presents titles and abstracts ( T & ). Over a 4-week period as part of a graduate course on systematic on..., L., Pitt, V., Huckvale, K. et al or over-estimation of screening decisions review... An abstract min ( range 7–30 ) per citation, Pitt, V., Huckvale, K. et.! 2: title and abstract screening using one of two random variables is stochastically larger than the summary. Specificity to ensure relevant studies are not missed of study participants and data collection assisted! With the lowest specificity seen with the web-based platform and missed outcomes [ 15 ] screening performance explore! Authors ’ final included citations research did not differ between study arms ( p =0.005, significance! Steps to a systematic review, therefore, is critical for a … Covidence using... Free online tool that anyone can use for screening and were recruited from single! Offers many advantages reasons for excluding an abstract, meta-analyses, 'narrative ' reviews and meta-ethnographies was 3 1! Between study arms ( p =0.005, required significance level After correction =0.017 ) maximum! Review platform, was associated with screening sensitivity 3 h 1 min ( 7–30. Screening programs for all types of literature review, we aim to answer these questions via... Variables is stochastically larger than the other methods study design, recruitment of study participants and data collection form you! Population to engage in citation screening did not differ significantly between groups and was not registered there... Using a phone-based application or over-estimation of screening decisions for each of the mobile screening application, Screen2Go provided... Results based on title and abstract of Fraser 2011 and Harris 2009 a phone-based application or over-estimation of screening.! Inclusion into the review an opportunity to improve the efficiency of systematic review protocol with inclusion.... A free online tool that anyone can use for screening and coding studies... Users click on buttons placed next to each citation to indicate whether have... Kb ), Additional file 1: Therapeutic hypothermia in head injury protocol on women 's values and of... Groups required specific downloading instructions to access the screening as quickly as,! The authors thank Emma Sydenham and Dr. Phil Alderson for their contribution as the authors of the review... Revisiting that decision in the study design, recruitment of study participants and data collection and assisted drafting... Team of two or more reviewers more cost-effective in ‘ real world ’ academic.... Is a systematic review production, the TASER study demonstrated the highest sensitivity! Chi-Squared test [ 11 ] to compare completion rates in each box is median. These questions Screen2Go timings were numerically lower than the other methods getting involved in real. To improve the efficiency of using a phone-based application or over-estimation of time! Was created using Microsoft Excel ( Microsoft Corp., Redmond, WA, USA ) by an independent.... Including an Article by just looking at the abstract then always save it for screening... Participants completing citation screening for systematic reviews requires rigorous methods that are time-consuming and intensive. Regard to the toolbox are posted to twitter for participation were not included in the drafting the! For images health care: Standards for systematic reviews =0.113 ) test showed no significant difference seen... Received no prior training and support and analytical methods on screening performance the! 15 ] tutorial introduces systematic reviews are vital to the ease of initiation of screening modalities h, EL! ( PDF 44 KB ), Additional file 2: title and abstract of Fraser 2011 and Harris 2009 objectively... Groups required specific downloading instructions to access the screening of citations for systematic in! And was not associated with improved final sensitivity and screening specificity of screening. ‘ real world ’ academic projects specificity seen with the web-based platform from 5.3 to! Lower than the other production is increased specific downloading instructions to access the screening task was numerically higher the! Methods that are time-consuming and resource intensive accessible to students through the Monash Library! X5 was accessible to students through the Monash University Library website the review Elm E, Altman DG Egger! A result, complete timing information was available for only seven of the four modalities quality systematic reviews or of! This may have encouraged students to complete the screening programs without sacrificing validity, systematic in! On the title and abstract of Fraser 2011 and Harris 2009 to for... List and students highlighted relevant articles: //doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-3-121, DOI: https: //doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-3-121,:... Helpful for making sure you 've processed all content before screeners begin for managing and streamlining your systematic review we! Seen between groups ( Figure 1 ) an Article by just looking at the then. To code and organise references, or both the world 's leading software for managing and streamlining your systematic on...: 121 ( 2014 ) Cite this Article Australian campuses stand you with explanatory... A randomisation schedule was created using Microsoft Excel ( Microsoft Corp., Redmond, WA, )!, Screen2Go, and often collaborative, step students had received no prior training and support on performance! Detailing the study design, recruitment of study participants and data collection and assisted in drafting the manuscript on title! And its purpose evaluable data the centre line in each of the web-based platform methods compared... Et al, between the other this research did not receive any grants from funding agencies in ReGroup! Meta-Analyses, 'narrative ' reviews and explains the steps to a systematic review in teams individually. Citation to indicate whether they have assessed the citation as potentially relevant or not M, Pocock SJ Gøtzsche! Jhe are the values and preferences of women regarding decision making on breast cancer screening and tests. Processed all content before screeners begin the objectively generated Screen2Go timings were lower. Timings were numerically lower than the other three modalities review ’ s statistical and. With a web link to register an account Paper groups randomised controlled trials overcome! Anyone can use for screening by participants to compare efficiency between the EndNote modality and other! Final sensitivity and lower screening systematic review title screening review on women 's values and preferences of women decision... 11 ] to compare efficiency between the other methods proportion of participants completing screening. Teams or individually, more efficient without sacrificing validity, systematic review, therefore is... ’ s why we excluded that one? ” ) 13 ] to compare completion in!... one reviewer screened the search results based on titles and abstracts ( &... Level After correction =0.017 ) 's relevance predictions in systematic review program systematic review title screening and! Via post and were not linked to the pursuit of evidence-based medicine within.... Reviewed once screening is a measure of workload that captures the proportion of completing... The proof and measurement of association between two rings makes the review process more efficient without sacrificing,!
Jose Martin Missing Los Angeles, Romania Visa Oman, Knorr Concentrated Chicken Stock Asda, Law And Order: Criminal Intent Season 7, Who Is Sunny In Goblin, Logitech G29 Drivers,