Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35655155›Full record

SynthesisBMC medical research methodology2022

Abstract screening using the automated tool Rayyan: results of effectiveness in three diagnostic test accuracy systematic reviews.

Amir Valizadeh, Mana Moassefi, Amin Nakhostin-Ansari, Seyed Hossein Hosseini Asl, Mehrnush Saghab Torbati, Reyhaneh Aghajani, Zahra Maleki Ghorbani, Shahriar Faghani

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC medical research methodology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 74 papers, 21 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
74citing papers in PubMed, 21 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

74 citing papers in PubMed, 21 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Exercise and pathologic complete response to cancer treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Systematic Review of Growth in Young Children With Cleft Lip and/or Cleft Palate From 0 to 24 Months of Age.The Cleft palate-craniofacial journal : official publication of the American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association · 2026
    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. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Pooled it
  20. Pooled it

14 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

8 authors.

Amir ValizadehNeuroscience Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. thisisamirv@gmail.com.
Mana MoassefiNeuroscience Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Amin Nakhostin-AnsariSports Medicine Research Center, Neuroscience Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Seyed Hossein Hosseini AslSports Medicine Research Center, Neuroscience Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Mehrnush Saghab TorbatiIslamic Azad University of Zahedan, Zahedan, Iran.
Reyhaneh AghajaniSports Medicine Research Center, Neuroscience Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Zahra Maleki GhorbaniSports Medicine Research Center, Neuroscience Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Shahriar FaghaniInterdisciplinary Neuroscience Research Program (INRP), Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo evaluate the performance of the automated abstract screening tool Rayyan.

methodsThe records obtained from the search for three systematic reviews were manually screened in four stages. At the end of each stage, Rayyan was used to predict the eligibility score for the remaining records. At two different thresholds (≤2.5 and < 2.5 for exclusion of a record) Rayyan-generated ratings were compared with the decisions made by human reviewers in the manual screening process and the tool's accuracy metrics were calculated.

resultsTwo thousand fifty-four records were screened manually, of which 379 were judged to be eligible for full-text assessment, and 112 were eventually included in the final review. For finding records eligible for full-text assessment, at the threshold of < 2.5 for exclusion, Rayyan managed to achieve sensitivity values of 97-99% with specificity values of 19-58%, while at the threshold of ≤2.5 for exclusion it had a specificity of 100% with sensitivity values of 1-29%. For the task of finding eligible reports for inclusion in the final review, almost similar results were obtained. DISCUSSION: At the threshold of < 2.5 for exclusion, Rayyan managed to be a reliable tool for excluding ineligible records, but it was not much reliable for finding eligible records. We emphasize that this study was conducted on diagnostic test accuracy reviews, which are more difficult to screen due to inconsistent terminology.

Indexed as

Diagnostic Tests, RoutineResearchDelivery of Health CareHumansAbstract screeningMethodologyRayyanSystematic reviews

Identifiers

PMID35655155
PMCPMC9161508

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.