ArticleSystematic reviews2021
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.
Article in Systematic reviews, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
18 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 37 citations in OpenAlex.
- Initial surgical management of injuries to the upper extremities for patients with multiple and/or severe injuries - a systematic review and clinical practice guideline update.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2026Pooled it
- Transport and destination hospital for patients with suspected multiple and/or severe injuries - a systematic review and clinical practice guideline update.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2026Pooled it
- Characteristics of studies falsely excluded during single-reviewer abstract screening: a meta-epidemiological analysis.BMC medical research methodology · 2026Pooled it
- Artificial intelligence capabilities in identifying atrial fibrillation using baseline sinus rhythm ECG : a systematic review.Open heart · 2025Pooled it
- Evaluation and forecasting methods to estimate number of patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma: a systematic literature review.Population health metrics · 2025Pooled it
- Climate change and health system preparedness: A scoping review of adaptation plans in Central America and the Caribbean.Lancet regional health. Americas · 2026Review
- Detecting false exclusions in single-reviewer literature screening by using AI tools as secondary reviewers: a study protocol for an evaluation study.Systematic reviews · 2026Article
- Article
- Graphene-Based Materials for Bone Regeneration in Dentistry: A Systematic Review of In Vitro Applications and Material Comparisons.Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Article
- Inequalities in the Quality and Safety of Post-Diagnostic Primary Care for People With Dementia: A Scoping Review.International journal of geriatric psychiatry · 2024Article
- Sports Participation and Osteoarthritis in Females: A Systematic Review.Sports (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Rapid reviews methods series: Guidance on team considerations, study selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment.BMJ evidence-based medicine · 2023Article
- Protocol for a scoping review of health equity frameworks and models applied in empirical studies of chronic disease prevention and control.Systematic reviews · 2023Article
- A scoping review of clinical skill development of preregistration registered nurses in Australia and five other English-speaking countries.Journal of clinical nursing · 2023Article
- The Experiences of Stakeholders Using Social Media as a Tool for Health Service Design and Quality Improvement: A Scoping Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Quality of Life Measurement in Dogs and Cats: A Scoping Review of Generic Tools.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2022Article
- Pediatric Chronic Critical Illness: Protocol for a Scoping Review.JMIR research protocols · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAccepted 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.
methodsTwenty-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.
resultsThe 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%.
conclusionsFindings 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.