ArticleJournal of orthopaedics2024
Machine Learning assisted systematic reviewing in orthopaedics.
Article in Journal of orthopaedics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Migration patterns of uncemented femoral stems in hip replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical radiostereometric analysis cohort studies.Acta orthopaedica · 2026Pooled it
- Artificial Intelligence Resources for the Screening of Titles and Abstracts in Systematic Reviews: A Scoping Review.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2026Review
- Comparing the performance of narrow vs. broad search strategies when using machine learning-based software for title/abstract screening.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2026Article
- Machine learning-assisted abstract screening on learning analytics: a step-by-step tutorial.Systematic reviews · 2026Article
- Article
- The dynamic linkage between covid-19 and nutrition: a review from a probiotics perspective using machine learning and bibliometric analysis.Frontiers in nutrition · 2025Article
- An exploration of available methods and tools to improve the efficiency of systematic review production: a scoping review.BMC medical research methodology · 2024Article
- Machine learning to optimize literature screening in medical guideline development.Systematic reviews · 2024Article
- Tunneling, cognitive load and time orientation and their relations with dietary behavior of people experiencing financial scarcity - an AI-assisted scoping review elaborating on scarcity theory.The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Machine learning assisted systematic reviewing may help to reduce the work burden in systematic reviews. The aim of this study is therefore to determine by a non-developer the performance of machine learning assisted systematic reviewing on previously published orthopaedic reviews in retrieving relevant papers. Methods: Active learning for Systematic Reviews (ASReview) was tested against the results from three previously published systematic reviews in the field of orthopaedics with 20 iterations for each review. The reviews covered easy, intermediate and advanced scenarios. The outcomes of interest were the percentage work saved at 95% recall (WSS@95), the percentage work saved at 100% recall (WSS@100) and the percentage of relevant references identified after having screened the first 10% of the records (RRF@10). Means and corresponding [95% confidence intervals] were calculated. Results: The WSS@95 was respectively 72 [71-74], 72 [72-73] and 50 [50-51] for the easy, intermediate and advanced scenarios. The WSS@100 was respectively 72 [71-73], 62 [61-63] and 37 [36-38] for the easy, intermediate and advanced scenarios. The RRF@10 was respectively 79 [78-81], 70 [69-71] and 58 [56-60] for the easy, intermediate and advanced scenarios. Conclusions: Machine learning assisted systematic reviewing was efficient in retrieving relevant papers for systematic review in orthopaedics. The majority of relevant papers were identified after screening only 10% of the papers. All relevant papers were identified after screening 30%-40% of the total papers meaning that 60%-70% of the work can potentially be saved.
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.