ArticleSystematic reviews2026
Detecting false exclusions in single-reviewer literature screening by using AI tools as secondary reviewers: a study protocol for an evaluation study.
Article in Systematic reviews, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSystematic reviews are fundamental to evidence-based medicine, but the process of screening studies is time-consuming and prone to errors, especially when conducted by a single reviewer. False exclusions of relevant studies can significantly impact the quality and reliability of reviews. Artificial intelligence (AI) tools have emerged as secondary reviewers in detecting these false exclusions, yet empirical evidence comparing their performance is limited.
methodsThis study protocol outlines a comprehensive evaluation of four AI tools (ASReview, DistillerSR Artificial Intelligence System [DAISY], Evidence for Policy and Practice Information [EPPI]-Reviewer, and Rayyan) in their capacity to act as secondary reviewers during single-reviewer title and abstract screening for systematic reviews. Utilizing a database of single-reviewer screening decisions from two published systematic reviews, we will assess how effective AI tools are at detecting false exclusions while assisting single-reviewer screening compared to the dual-reviewer reference standard. Additionally, we aim to determine the overall screening performance of AI tools in assisting single-reviewer screening. DISCUSSION: This research seeks to provide valuable insights into the potential of AI-assisted screening for detecting falsely excluded studies during single screening. By comparing the performance of multiple AI tools, we aim to guide researchers in selecting the most effective assistive technologies for their review processes. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: (Open Science Framework): https://osf.io/dky26.
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.