ReviewBMJ open2024
Inter-reviewer reliability of human literature reviewing and implications for the introduction of machine-assisted systematic reviews: a mixed-methods review.
Review in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 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
18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Artificial intelligence augmented tutoring vs expert instruction on learning simulated general surgical skills: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC medical education · 2026Pooled it
- Development and Exploratory Evaluation of a Large Language Model-Supported Scoping Review Workflow.Journal of medical systems · 2026Article
- Novel β-Lactam/β-Lactamase Inhibitors Versus Best Available Therapy on the Mortality-Related Carbapenem-Resistant Enterobacterales Infection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- AI-based applications supporting informal caregivers in childhood caries prevention and management: protocol for a scoping review.BMJ open · 2026Article
- Medium-term to long-term effect of digital self-management interventions for type 2 diabetes mellitus: protocol of a systematic review.BMJ open · 2026Article
- Using full agreement across multiple large language models for title-and-abstract screening in systematic reviews: a proof-of-concept.Systematic reviews · 2026Article
- Automated full-text screening and accelerated reviews using large language models with context-aware agents: an exploratory analysis in biomarker research.European heart journal. Digital health · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence (AI) Readiness to Support Evidence Synthesis by Workflow: Findings From a Review of Reviews.Campbell systematic reviews · 2026Article
- Addressing gender disparities in the efficacy of psychological interventions for behavioral addictions: protocol for a systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Addiction science & clinical practice · 2026Article
- Novel Abstract Screening Algorithm Using Delphi-Inspired Large Language Model Consensus for Systematic Reviews in Psychiatry: Nouvel algorithme de sélection des résumés utilisant un consensus issu d'un grand modèle de langage inspiré de la méthode Delphi pour les revues systématiques en psychiatrie.Canadian journal of psychiatry. Revue canadienne de psychiatrie · 2026Article
- A protocol for a systematic review of the psychosocial effects of experiencing compassion from others and its interpretation through secular and religious frameworks.Systematic reviews · 2026Article
- Machine learning-assisted abstract screening on learning analytics: a step-by-step tutorial.Systematic reviews · 2026Article
- Machine learning-enabled systematic review on coded healthcare data in heart failure research.European heart journal. Digital health · 2026Article
- Is the Quantity of Capsaicin in Food Related to Its Organoleptic and Sensory Effects? A Systematic Review.Food science & nutrition · 2026Review
- MicroRNAs profiling in malaria and arbovirus coinfection: A systematic review protocol.PloS one · 2026Article
- Harnessing ChatGPT for abstract screening in health-related scoping reviews: the role of structured eligibility criteria.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- The introduction and adoption of artificial intelligence in systematic literature reviews: a discrete choice experiment.BMJ open · 2025Article
- Enhancing systematic literature reviews with generative artificial intelligence: development, applications, and performance evaluation.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesOur main objective is to assess the inter-reviewer reliability (IRR) reported in published systematic literature reviews (SLRs). Our secondary objective is to determine the expected IRR by authors of SLRs for both human and machine-assisted reviews.
methodsWe performed a review of SLRs of randomised controlled trials using the PubMed and Embase databases. Data were extracted on IRR by means of Cohen's kappa score of abstract/title screening, full-text screening and data extraction in combination with review team size, items screened and the quality of the review was assessed with the A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews 2. In addition, we performed a survey of authors of SLRs on their expectations of machine learning automation and human performed IRR in SLRs.
resultsAfter removal of duplicates, 836 articles were screened for abstract, and 413 were screened full text. In total, 45 eligible articles were included. The average Cohen's kappa score reported was 0.82 (SD=0.11, n=12) for abstract screening, 0.77 (SD=0.18, n=14) for full-text screening, 0.86 (SD=0.07, n=15) for the whole screening process and 0.88 (SD=0.08, n=16) for data extraction. No association was observed between the IRR reported and review team size, items screened and quality of the SLR. The survey (n=37) showed overlapping expected Cohen's kappa values ranging between approximately 0.6-0.9 for either human or machine learning-assisted SLRs. No trend was observed between reviewer experience and expected IRR. Authors expect a higher-than-average IRR for machine learning-assisted SLR compared with human based SLR in both screening and data extraction.
conclusionCurrently, it is not common to report on IRR in the scientific literature for either human and machine learning-assisted SLRs. This mixed-methods review gives first guidance on the human IRR benchmark, which could be used as a minimal threshold for IRR in machine learning-assisted SLRs. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42023386706.
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.