SynthesisBMC medical research methodology2026
Characteristics of studies falsely excluded during single-reviewer abstract screening: a meta-epidemiological analysis.
Synthesis in BMC medical research methodology, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAbstract screening is a crucial step in systematic reviews, yet it can be prone to errors, leading to the exclusion of potentially relevant studies. Understanding the characteristics associated with falsely excluded studies can inform strategies to improve screening processes and minimize errors.
methodsWe conducted a meta-epidemiological analysis of a dataset from a methods study, comprising 924 inclusion and exclusion decisions for 73 studies. We examined the study, abstract, journal, and reviewer characteristics associated with the falsely excluded abstracts. The characteristics examined included the study design, publication year, risk of bias, abstract content, country of conduct, journal indexing, SCImago Journal & Country Rank, and reviewer characteristics.
resultsAbstract decisions referring to nonrandomized studies of interventions (NRSI) constituted the highest proportion of false exclusions (19.6%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 12.7%–28.8%) compared to nonrandomized controlled trials (NRCTs) (6.7%; 95% CI, 1.2%–29.8%), randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (9.3%; 95% CI, 7.5%–11.7%), and interrupted time series (ITS) (12.7%; 95% CI, 7.0%–21.8%). Abstracts that insufficiently reported study information (18.4%; 95% CI, 14.6%–22.8%) and study design (15.4%; 95% CI, 10.3%–20.6%) were more often falsely excluded by reviewers than abstracts sufficiently reporting study information (6.0%; 95% CI, 4.4%–8.3%) and study design (9.4%; 95% CI, 7.3%–11.5%).
conclusionsTo reduce false exclusion decisions in abstracts, study authors should implement clear, structured, and informative abstract reporting, explicitly mentioning the study design and key details. These findings highlight the need for adherence to current reporting standards, reviewer training, and reviewer support (e.g., meetings, discussions), to improve the accuracy of systematic reviews.
trial registrationhttps://osf.io/7xhkj .
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.