Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41583534›Full record

ArticleCochrane evidence synthesis and methods2026

Don't Stop Me Now, `Cause I'm Having a Good Time Screening: Evaluation of Stopping Methods for Safe Use of Priority Screening in Systematic Reviews.

Tim Repke, Francesca Tinsdeall, Diana Danilenko, Sergio Graziosi, Finn Müller-Hansen, Lena Schmidt, James Thomas, Gert van Valkenhoef

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. 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

8 authors.

Tim RepkeClimate Economics and Policy Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), Member of the Leibniz Association Potsdam Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9661-6325
Francesca TinsdeallCentre for Clinical Brain Sciences University of Edinburgh Edinburgh UK.
Diana DanilenkoClimate Economics and Policy Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), Member of the Leibniz Association Potsdam Germany.
Sergio GraziosiEvidence for Policy and Practice Information Center, UCL Social Research Institute, Institute of Education University College London London UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5409-9438
Finn Müller-HansenClimate Economics and Policy Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), Member of the Leibniz Association Potsdam Germany.
Lena SchmidtEvidence for Policy and Practice Information Center, UCL Social Research Institute, Institute of Education University College London London UK.
James ThomasEvidence for Policy and Practice Information Center, UCL Social Research Institute, Institute of Education University College London London UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4805-4190
Gert van ValkenhoefCentral Executive Team Cochrane Collaboration London UK.

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Priority screening has the potential to reduce the number of records that need to be annotated in systematic literature reviews. So-called technology-assisted reviews (TAR) use machine-learning with prior include/exclude annotations to continuously rank unseen records by their predicted relevance to find relevant records earlier. In this article, we present a systematic evaluation of methods to determine when it is safe to stop screening when using prioritization. Methods: We implement an open-source evaluation framework that features a novel method to generate rankings and simulate priority screening processes for 81 real-world data sets. We use these simulations to evaluate 15 statistical or rule-based (heuristic) stopping methods, testing a range of hyperparameters for each. Results: The work-saving potential and performance of stopping criteria heavily rely on "good" rankings, which are typically not achieved by a single ranking algorithm across the entire screening process. Our evaluation shows that almost all existing stopping methods either fail to reliably stop without missing relevant records or fail to utilize the full potential work-savings. Only one method reliably meets the set recall target, but stops conservatively. Conclusions: Many digital evidence synthesis tools provide priority screening features that are already used in many research projects. However, the theoretical work-savings demonstrated in retrospective simulations of prioritization can only be unlocked with safe and reproducible stopping criteria. Our results highlight the need for improved stopping methods and guidelines on how to responsibly use priority screening. We also urge screening platforms to provide indicators and authors to transparently report metrics when automating (parts of) their synthesis.

Indexed as

digital evidence synthesispriority screeningstopping methodssystematic mapssystematic reviewstechnology‐assisted reviews

Identifiers

PMID41583534
PMCPMC12825451

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.