Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31272125›Full record

ArticleResearch synthesis methods2019

The value of a second reviewer for study selection in systematic reviews.

Carolyn R T Stoll, Sonya Izadi, Susan Fowler, Paige Green, Jerry Suls, Graham A Colditz

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Research synthesis methods, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 123 papers, 33 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
123citing papers in PubMed, 33 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

123 citing papers in PubMed, 33 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. 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. The effectiveness of personalised surveillance and aftercare in breast cancer follow-up: a systematic review.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024
    Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Pooled it
  20. Pooled it

63 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

6 authors.

Carolyn R T StollDivision of Public Health Sciences, Department of Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, Saint Louis, Missouri, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6951-4219
Sonya IzadiDivision of Public Health Sciences, Department of Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, Saint Louis, Missouri, USA.
Susan FowlerBrown School, Washington University School of Medicine, Saint Louis, Missouri, USA.
Paige GreenBehavioral Research Program, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7886-8924
Jerry SulsBehavioral Research Program, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8436-7488
Graham A ColditzDivision of Public Health Sciences, Department of Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, Saint Louis, Missouri, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7307-0291

Funding

Washington University Center for Cellular ImagingP30CA091842 · NCI · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI AIMEE S JAMES · 2001 to 2026
$128.0M
Targeting the Bone Marrow Microenvironment In Acute Lymphocytic LeukemiaP50CA171963 · NCI · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI Daniel C Link · 2013 to 2026
$31.6M
CCR NIH HHS HHSN261200800001CFoundation for Barnes-Jewish Hospital, St LouisNCI NIH HHS HHSN261200800001ENCI NIH HHS P30 CA091842NCI NIH HHS P50 CA171963
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAlthough dual independent review of search results by two reviewers is generally recommended for systematic reviews, there are not consistent recommendations regarding the timing of the use of the second reviewer. This study compared the use of a complete dual review approach, with two reviewers in both the title/abstract screening stage and the full-text screening stage, as compared with a limited dual review approach, with two reviewers only in the full-text stage.

methodsThis study was performed within the context of a large systematic review. Two reviewers performed a complete dual review of 15 000 search results and a limited dual review of 15 000 search results. The number of relevant studies mistakenly excluded by highly experienced reviewers in the complete dual review was compared with the number mistakenly excluded during the full-text stage of the limited dual review.

resultsIn the complete dual review approach, an additional 6.6% to 9.1% of eligible studies were identified during the title/abstract stage by using two reviewers, and an additional 6.6% to 11.9% of eligible studies were identified during the full-text stage by using two reviewers. In the limited dual review approach, an additional 4.4% to 5.3% of eligible studies were identified with the use of two reviewers.

conclusionsUsing a second reviewer throughout the entire study screening process can increase the number of relevant studies identified for use in a systematic review. Systematic review performers should consider using a complete dual review process to ensure all relevant studies are included in their review.

Indexed as

Observer VariationResearch DesignSystematic Reviews as TopicAlgorithmsDatabases, BibliographicHumansInformation Storage and RetrievalPeriodicals as TopicRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicReproducibility of Resultseligibility screeningreview methodssearch strategystudy selection

Identifiers

PMID31272125
PMCPMC6989049

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.