Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24551345›Full record

ArticleAMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium2013

A large-scale analysis of the reasons given for excluding articles that are retrieved by literature search during systematic review.

Tracy Edinger, Aaron M Cohen

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC
In one paragraph

Article in AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 6 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Article
  8. Acute Effect of Night Shift Work on Endothelial Function with and without Naps: A Scoping Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
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

2 authors.

Tracy EdingerDepartment of Medical Informatics and Clinical Epidemiology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA.
Aaron M CohenDepartment of Medical Informatics and Clinical Epidemiology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA.

Funding

TRAINING PROGRAM IN HEALTH INFORMATICST15LM007088 · NLM · OREGON HEALTH & SCIENCE UNIVERSITY · PI WILLIAM R HERSH, Vishnu Mohan · 1992 to 2026
$23.4M
Text Mining Pipeline to Accelerate Systematic Reviews in Evidence-Based MedicineR01LM010817 · NLM · UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO · PI COHEN, AARON M., SMALHEISER, NEIL R · 2010 to 2019
$4.5M
NLM NIH HHS 5R01LM010817NLM NIH HHS R01 LM010817NLM NIH HHS T15 LM007088
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveA literature search to identify relevant studies is one of the first steps in performing a systematic review (SR) in support of evidence-based medicine. To maximize efficiency, the search must find practically all relevant studies and retrieve few that are irrelevant; however, this level of precision is seldom attained. Therefore, many articles must be manually examined for relevance. To better understand the limitations of current search tools as applied to SR, we characterized the most common reasons that papers retrieved by SR searches were excluded from the review.

methodsThe textual reasons given for retrieved but excluded articles were extracted from 6,743 SRs performed by 54 Cochrane Collaboration review groups. The frequencies of different exclusion reasons were analyzed, and we developed a taxonomy summarizing these reasons.

resultsAlmost 65% of articles were excluded because the means of comparison were inappropriate. Of these, about 72% were due to the randomized controlled trial (RCT) design being required but not employed by the excluded study. Mismatching interventions and outcomes and incorrect population characteristics were also common reasons for exclusion.

conclusionsCurrently available search methods do not adequately address the most common exclusion reasons for systematic review, even those based primarily on study design.

Indexed as

Information Storage and RetrievalSystematic Reviews as TopicDatabases, BibliographicResearch Design

Identifiers

PMID24551345
PMCPMC3900186

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.