ArticleBMC medical research methodology2025
Validity of using a semi-automated screening tool in a systematic review assessing non-specific effects of respiratory vaccines.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Artificial Intelligence Resources for the Screening of Titles and Abstracts in Systematic Reviews: A Scoping Review.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2026Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe abstract screening process of systematic reviews can take thousands of hours by two researchers. We aim to determine the reliability and validity of Research Screener, a semi-automated abstract screening tool within a systematic review on non-specific and broader effects of respiratory vaccines on acute lower respiratory infection hospitalisations and antimicrobial prescribing patterns in young children.
methodsWe searched online databases for Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Scopus and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception until 24th January 2024. We included human studies involving non-specific and broader effects of respiratory vaccines and excluded studies investigating live-attenuated vaccines. The RS trial compared relevant abstracts flagged by RS to manual screening. RS ranks abstracts by relevance based on seed articles used to validate the search strategy. Abstracts are re-ranked following reviewers' feedback. Two reviewers screened RS independently with a third reviewer resolving conflicts; three reviewers screened manually with a fourth reviewer resolving conflicts.
resultsAfter removal of duplicates, 9,727 articles were identified for abstract screening. Of those, 3,000 were randomly selected for screening in RS, with 18% (540) screened in RS and 100% manually. In RS, 99 relevant articles were identified. After comparing RS to manual screening and completing full-text review on 26 articles not captured by RS, 4 articles were missed by RS (2 due to human error, 2 not yet screened). Hence, RS captured articles accurately whilst reducing the screening load.
conclusionsRS is a valid and reliable tool that reduces the amount of time spent screening articles for large-scale systematic reviews. RS is a useful tool that should be considered for streamlining the process of systematic reviews.
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.