Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38508610›Full record

ReviewBMJ open2024

Inter-reviewer reliability of human literature reviewing and implications for the introduction of machine-assisted systematic reviews: a mixed-methods review.

Piet Hanegraaf, Abrham Wondimu, Jacob Jan Mosselman, Rutger de Jong, Seye Abogunrin, Luisa Queiros, Marie Lane, Maarten J Postma, Cornelis Boersma, Jurjen van der Schans

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
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

10 authors.

Piet HanegraafPitts, Zeist, The Netherlands.
Abrham WondimuHealth-Ecore, Zeist, The Netherlands.
Jacob Jan MosselmanPitts, Zeist, The Netherlands.
Rutger de JongPitts, Zeist, The Netherlands.
Seye AbogunrinF. Hoffmann-La Roche, Basel, Switzerland.
Luisa QueirosF. Hoffmann-La Roche, Basel, Switzerland.
Marie LaneF. Hoffmann-La Roche, Basel, Switzerland.
Maarten J PostmaHealth-Ecore, Zeist, The Netherlands.
Cornelis BoersmaHealth-Ecore, Zeist, The Netherlands.
Jurjen van der SchansHealth-Ecore, Zeist, The Netherlands jurjenvanderschans@health-ecore.com.ORCID 0000-0001-6170-1191

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Machine LearningSystematic Reviews as TopicHumansObserver VariationReproducibility of ResultsRandomized Controlled TrialSurveys and QuestionnairesSystematic Review

Identifiers

PMID38508610
PMCPMC10952858

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.