Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23526335›Full record

ArticleClinical epidemiology2013

Titles versus titles and abstracts for initial screening of articles for systematic reviews.

Farrah J Mateen, Jiwon Oh, Ana I Tergas, Neil H Bhayani, Biren B Kamdar

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical epidemiology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 72 papers, 27 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
72citing papers in PubMed, 27 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

72 citing papers in PubMed, 27 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Policy, system, and environmental interventions addressing obesity and diet-related outcomes in early childhood education settings: A systematic review.Obesity reviews : an official journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity · 2023
    Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Pooled it
  20. Pooled it

12 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Farrah J MateenBloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, MD, USA ; Department of Neurology, Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Jiwon Oh
Ana I Tergas
Neil H Bhayani
Biren B Kamdar

Funding

An ICU Sleep Intervention to Improve Perceived Sleep Quality & Cognitive FunctionF32HL104901 · NHLBI · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI KAMDAR, BIREN BHARAT · 2010 to 2011
$118k
NHLBI NIH HHS F32 HL104901
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is no consensus on whether screening titles alone or titles and abstracts together is the preferable strategy for inclusion of articles in a systematic review.

methodsTWO METHODS OF SCREENING ARTICLES FOR INCLUSION IN A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW WERE COMPARED: titles first versus titles and abstracts simultaneously. Each citation found in MEDLINE or Embase was reviewed by two physician reviewers for prespecified criteria: the citation included (1) primary data; (2) the exposure of interest; and (3) the outcome of interest.

resultsThere were 2965 unique citations. The titles first strategy resulted in an immediate rejection of 2558 (86%) of the records after reading the title alone, requiring review of 239 titles and abstracts, and subsequently 176 full text articles. The simultaneous titles and abstracts review led to rejection of 2782 citations (94%) and review of 183 full text articles. Interreviewer agreement to include an article for full text review using the titles-first screening strategy was 89%-94% (kappa = 0.54) and 96%-97% (kappa = 0.56) for titles and abstracts combined. The final systematic review included 13 articles, all of which were identified by both screening strategies (yield 100%, burden 114%). Precision was higher in the titles and abstracts method (7.1% versus 3.2%) but recall was the same (100% versus 100%), leading to a higher F-measure for the titles and abstracts approach (0.1327 versus 0.0619).

conclusionScreening via a titles-first approach may be more efficient than screening titles and abstracts together.

Indexed as

epidemiologymeta-analysisresearch methodssystematic review

Identifiers

PMID23526335
PMCPMC3604876

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.