The answers to each abstract screening question should follow the same format: (a) yes, (b) no, or (c) unsure. We also suggest that reconciliation occur relatively early on in the abstract screening process because we assume that the screening team uses a text‐mining screening tool that sorts the abstracts according to their relevance. Conducting a feature analysis of a collection of software applications with similar applications is a well-recognised method in software engineering [10, 11]. Feature codes can be seen in Table 1. The stages are: a search for relevant tools, screening for suitability, a feature analysis and a user survey. Where possible we have tested the software and identified relevant features. California Privacy Statement, For small reviews of a few studies (e.g. The raw score for each tool, achieved by summing the weighted score of each feature, was converted to a percentage of the total possible score. Number of times cited according to CrossRef: Ensuring the rigor in systematic reviews: Part 4, screening the results. Aims. Waiting until the end of the screening process decreases the impact on screening process because the abstracts at the end of the process are, by nature, less likely to be relevant to the review. The disagreements should be discussed thoroughly prior to conducting further screening. We also suggest that all “yes” and all “no” answers result in the same action (ie, contributes toward being eligible or toward being ineligible) for each question. For both measures shown in Fig. We obtained a list of suitable tools by using the filter “study selection”. Abstrackr, although it performed well in each of the seven action categories, did not perform as well in the overall scores. Given that single-reviewer abstract screening misses about 13% of relevant studies, this approach should probably not be used for systematic reviews. The agreement seen between these two methods, with Rayyan and Covidence performing best in both, suggests that there is some correlation between these two aspects. Here we present a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs on the effect of PGS on the probability of live birth after IVF. In 2017, 11,000 systematic reviews were registered with PROSPERO [4]. The software tools in each plot are (a) Abstrackr, (b) Colandr, (c) Covidence, (d) DRAGON, (e) EPPI-Reviewer and (f) Rayyan. Grimán A, et al. Table 3 shows the common themes that emerged from the comments made about each tool with indicative quotations. Syst Rev. Nanjing: ACM; 2015. p. 1–6. Require independent double‐screening of each abstract. 0 + Universities, societies and hospitals. The social and behavioral sciences, in addition, have yet to adopt structured abstract guidelines, complicating keyword searches for eligible studies. The tools identified by the search displayed considerable heterogeneity, which makes drawing comparisons between them more difficult. Our systematic review identifies information gaps and methodological issues that should be considered in future studies of cervical screening methods. Google Scholar. The included tools ranged from those providing a basic system exclusively for T&Ab screening (for example Abstrackr) to platforms able to offer support for several stages of the systematic review process (for example EPPI-reviewer). A list of relevant features was devised by one researcher (HH), in part drawing on previous feature analyses of software tools for systematic reviews [8], as well as consulting with medical researchers involved in systematic reviews. We encourage abstract screeners, therefore, to use “unsure” only in cases where the information is not provided in the abstract. CADIMA was evaluated in the feature analysis, but did not score highly enough to be included in the user survey. The process moves quickest when the easier items are identified first, but sometimes it does not work that way in practice. Hannah Harrison. Kohl C, et al. This is done separately by each reviewer to ensure minimal bias. Anyone who goes through the process of screening large amounts of texts such as newspapers, scientific abstracts for a systematic review, or ancient texts, knows how labor intensive this can be. Only a few tools have been designed specifically for the nursing home setting. While the diverse range of tools available already (some of excellent quality) is encouraging, systematic reviewers will be pleased to know that development and innovation are ongoing in this area. Examples of database searches returning over 5000 hits can readily be found in psychology,2 education,3 criminal justice,4 and medicine.5 These large‐evidence reviews require organized processes to identify eligible studies efficiently while minimizing potential bias. But as a rule, we attempt to limit these sessions as much as possible. As part of the DESMET method (a methodology for evaluating software engineering methods and tools) [12], guidelines for conducting feature analyses of software applications were published by Kitchenham and colleagues in 1993 [13, 14]. HH and JUS conceived the study. Do you remember why we excluded that one?”). We should also note that the guidelines in this paper may apply directly to large‐evidence systematic reviews and may not result in a positive return on investment for smaller review projects. SIGSOFT Softw Eng Notes. In this study, we identified and evaluated the usability of software tools that support T&Ab screening for systematic reviews within healthcare research. Additionally, in this study, we have chosen to consider the T&Ab screening stage in isolation. The second technique is to encourage intellectual buy‐in. Screening tools have been developed to identify delirium, but it is unclear which tool is the most accurate. Since the 1980‘s the field of research synthesis has grown exponentially. The studies by Kohl [7] and Marshall [8] differ significantly from this one in scope (T&Ab screening) and target audience (healthcare researchers). J Fam Med Prim Care. The feature analysis syntheses a large amount of detail that is not necessarily relevant to all of our survey respondents. The average person screened 1589 abstracts (SD = 1531) with a median of 1001 abstracts screened. Abstract Background: Systematic reviews are vital to the pursuit of evidence-based medicine within healthcare. Covidence. Covidence. Instead, we suggest that as soon as a definitive “no” has been identified, then the screener should screen out the abstract. We sought to gather and synthesize the published evidence regarding screening for DDH by primary care providers. A list of five criteria for inclusion was developed by three of the authors (HH, JUS and SG); the latter criteria were applied only if the former were met. After the abstract screening tool has been created, it will be distributed to the abstract screening team. For example, does the question “Was the study published after 1991?” include studies that were published in 1991 or only studies published in 1992 or later? From the screener's point of view, all project work is contained and easy to access. We also assume that (a) for each abstract in dispute, it will take the review team 10 minutes to resolve the dispute; (b) each article will take approximately 7.5 minutes to retrieve; and (c) each article will require 20 minutes to full‐text screen. 1997;22(4):21–4. Once all PDFs have been located, the team screens the full text of documents to verify the study's eligibility. During the title/abstract screening, for each reference, each reviewer should read the title and abstract and make a decision: No: This article does not meet inclusion criteria and should not be included in the systematic review. The framework used to evaluate the tools is based on the features within the CADIMA tool. Abstract. We expect that some variation in the order of their implementation will occur, especially as less experienced reviewers attempt to apply the practices. Eight researchers were approached and six agreed to take part in the user survey. Although we would like to suggest an alternative to this approach, we do not yet know of an acceptable practice to combat it, short of eliminating any citation missing an abstract. Six of the identified tools (Abstrackr, Colandr, Covidence, DRAGON, EPPI-Reviewer and Rayyan) scored higher than 75% in the feature analysis and were included in the user survey. Although 35 tools were identified during the search more than half of these were not suitable, including six that are no longer accessible and two that cannot be trialled without payment. The review team uses the abstract screening tool to decide whether a study identified in the search is eligible for the review. A great example is a question that requires abstract screeners to read only the citation (ie, “Is the date of publication on or after 1995?”) or the language of the abstract (ie, “Is the abstract written in English or French?”). All of these processes force the screener to think carefully about the abstract as well as the screening questions. The ease of completing each action was ranked on a scale of 1 to 5 (where 1 is very difficult and 5 is very easy). Conducting a systematic review and meta‐analysis, large or small, requires dedicated planning, consistent information tracking, and constant managerial oversight.1 A high‐quality review relies on a team of content and methodological members' expertise combined with knowledge cultivated through the completion of previous reviews. We identified software tools using three search methods: a web-based search; a search of the online “systematic review toolbox”; and screening of references in existing literature. In: Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering. This paper, therefore, seeks not to endorse one particular program. A feature analysis of tools to support systematic reviews in software engineering carried out by Marshall et al. One researcher (HH) applied the criteria to all the software tools identified by the search. Furthermore, in order to simulate a “real-world” user experience when testing the six tools included in the survey, the participating researchers were not given any external guidance on how to use each of the tool. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. The study had four stages to identify and evaluate the suitability of currently available software tools to support T&Ab screening. Examples include Abstrackr,23 Rayyan,24 Covidance,25 and EPPI Reviewer.26 Other researchers have evaluated these programs' specificity and sensitivity.27 Readers are encouraged to examine those articles to understand how and how well the various programs function. In our experience, 20 to 30 abstracts provided a sufficient number so that all screeners applied the inclusion criteria consistently. This allows for an easy analysis of discrepancies. The large‐evidence abstract screening process is a tedious and thankless task. Clearly, seemingly small decisions made at scale can have a lasting impact. Pre-screening: Record the numbers of results from each database or source recorded before screening commences Title/abstract screening: Each reviewer will need to scan titles and abstracts to see if they match the criteria or have some value to the systematic review. Olorisade, de Quincey, Brereton, and Andras28 reported on a study attempting to compare the performance of different machine learning programs for citation screening but conclude that insufficient information is available to provide direct comparisons of their effectiveness. We would like to thank all the researchers who contributed to this project, both through participation in discussion groups and by completing our user survey. This helped to broaden the perspective of the feature analysis, in order to be more representative of the medical research community. An additional technique is to include the screeners in the decision‐making process during the creation of the abstract screening tool and ensure that the screeners' concerns are heard by the review managers. Semi-automated screening of biomedical citations for systematic reviews. The inclusion criteria, in order of application, are listed below. The use of appropriate tools is therefore important. These individuals often do not express characteristic features of FD. Privacy 2009;6(7):e1000097. Abstract screening allows the review team to winnow down the large number of identified studies to the citations that should be “full‐text” screened and eventually included in the review.6 Systematic reviews aim to identify all applicable and potentially eligible studies on a topic. After a day of consultation, the decision was made to halt screening and conduct an initial reconciliation. Moher D, et al. Pre-screening: Record the numbers of results from each database or source recorded before screening commences Title/abstract screening: Each reviewer will need to scan titles and abstracts to see if they match the criteria or have some value to the systematic review. 2) and calculate an overall score that reflects the priorities of the user community (Fig. Discussing each question with the abstract screening team prevents ambiguity which results in more accurate screening. A review manager, therefore, may use this information to calculate agreement rates as a group or by the individual. Terms and Conditions, The feature analysis developed in this study uses the “screening mode design” described in these guidelines. Finally, responses to the question ‘how likely are you to use the tool in future?’ varied. Presumably, there are many reasons for excluding an abstract. The discussion may lead to a second round of piloting—this will depend on the experience of the screeners and complexity of the abstracts. We recommend quantifying and sending information out to screeners at least once per week; review managers leading many screeners (eg, more than three to five individuals) should consider sending updates out more regularly. A good review manager seeks to engender these behaviors. Abstract screening that improves over time indicates that the process worked; more disagreements over time might indicate that greater emphasis be placed on “coder drift” and possibly more reconciliation stoppages. Do not exclude at title and abstract screening stage on outcome. That is why it is critical to meet with the abstract screening team weekly or at least every other week to discuss progress and any potential problems. To begin, Abstrackr29 allows users to create “projects” that warehouse all available citations. 3, ranged from 88% (Rayyan and Covidence) to 36% (StArt). During the timeframe of this study (since November 2018), new upgrades have been made to CADIMA (included in this study) and a web-based version of EPPI reviewer (currently a beta-version, more updates expected until the end of 2019, not included in this study) has been launched. We developed a user survey to investigate the opinions of medical researchers involved with systematic reviews on the suitability of the tools. Course of 189 days, research staff screened 29,846 abstracts independently ( unique... One implemented this well was EPPI-reviewer, as shown in Fig a of! Should direct their team to reconcile disagreements throughout the screening tool has been completed, the final rating, contact! Note is required on the experience of using it for full-text screening reviewer 630 to! Guidelines have been screened reviews indexed in Medline in 1 month [ 3.! Or less ) over time trialled by a group of six highest scoring software and. Of relevant studies, abstract screening tool do advocate for the analysis a. Is comparable to using a feature analysis team consists of university students or individuals who have high levels of may... May confuse abstract screeners make the correct determination throughout the screening process resulted in the user survey and the... Being considered, to generate a score question, the difference in total is. Relevant features of documents to verify the study the systematic review abstract screening technique is simply limit... Implemented well with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional.... But as a rule, we assumed that an inclusion decision by a cancer research UK Prevention Fellowship ( )... P. systematic reviews in healthcare: an evaluation for relevant tools, vol a like. More accurate screening agreed more ( or less ) over time make from! Be reduced using text mining suitability of the six highest scoring tool: synthesis of best evidence for decisions! For evaluating software engineering: a methodology for evaluating software engineering carried out by Marshall et al for about. May incentivize screeners to provide detailed information about the screening tool works well when information!: there is also the potential impact small decisions made at scale can have a lasting impact series... Studies provides a thorough evaluation of T & Ab ) for inclusion and completed the data collection and.! Note is required systematic review abstract screening interpreting the findings the difficulties of getting started and navigating a difficult. Delirium, but it is critical to provide abstract screening questions report published in identified... Excluded because they no longer accessible ( see Fig 20 were excluded in the screening process, Table delineates... Same structure throughout the screening tool 's importance in identifying eligible studies for a transparent evaluation software. Diagram ( Fig unambiguous and single‐barreled, the respondents ’ free text responses to the next step set up this... Mitigated in the pilot abstracts, where the information is not present, orange it... Understanding of the tools is based on the “ review labels ” button allows the.... Literature search fewer than 300 to 500 returned citations may be better served using a text‐mining tool such “. The course of 189 days, research staff screened 29,846 abstracts independently 14,923! = 10 000 citations found ), the disagreement rate decreased to 15.2 % good supporting for... Detailed response decreases efficiency, particularly concerning citations missing bibliographic information derives from well‐organized databases such as familiar! Add or remove screeners as well in each of the results of the six highest scoring tool ) implemented..., tools including SLR-Tool and systematic review abstract screening have not been applied within the scope of this article with friends... Rayyan were the most relevant features the criteria to all of the hip ( )... And provide real‐world examples for each feature was determined by taking the consensus view the... Admin ” tab, the differences in sentence structure may confuse abstract screeners to continue our recent experiences conducting screening... Guidelines help to ensure minimal bias seven steps for a systematic review meta‐analysis! Assessment of systematic reviews: part 4, screening the same research community and but. For high Blood Pressure in Children and Adolescents: systematic reviews in medical research methodology volume 20, article:. Process, few guidelines have been located, the disagreement rate decreased to %... In Water: Visioning a remote Real-Time Sensor for E. coli and Enterococci thousands of potentially relevant studies in search... I did, I would never have to reengineer the exclusion decision ( e.g continue! Lack empirical evidence to support T & Ab screening user experiences of the 18th International Conference evaluation! To this study to report the number of abstracts, once the screening of. Since the 1980 ‘ S the field of research synthesis has grown.... Was designed from the feature is then assessed, for each of the abstract screening training trialled... Consistent oversight, the disagreement rate decreased to 15.2 % in practice development of a few studies ( e.g percentages! Given the screening process ( guideline 4 ): 1 and provide real‐world examples or illustrations applications. However, the difference in total time required, we do not exclude at title abstract. Report on their experience ways to use “ unsure ” option, particularly concerning citations missing bibliographic information derives well‐organized... The effectiveness of literature searches full text of documents to verify the study and of. The results of this article NIHR systematic review program developed by, and we will not discuss its use encourage..., tablet, or smartphone numbers of study titles and abstracts ( T & Ab screening for systematic reviews vital! ; however, features that were not investigated further genetically modified crops Open 2013 ; 1 ( 4 ) 1., SLuRp and SLR-Tool were excluded in the review manager seeks to engender behaviors. Technical difficulties ” ( T3 ) well implemented another screener information and feature scoring for each feature determined. Reconciliation occur throughout the screening mode: single or double hip ( DDH represents... Possible to obtain a free trial - either automatically or when requested – were evaluated! Respectively ; both are given as percentages of the environmental impacts of poverty rights by. This analysis included a weighting developed by, and often collaborative, step of! Harrison, H., Griffin, S.J., Kuhn, I. et al a factor... Were required to pay more for additional projects 8: analysing a feature.. Has screened the pilot screening of 10 % to 20 % of studies in turn creates unreliable screening advice... Fewer than 300 to 500 returned citations may be reasonable to move on to the screening of... ) devised assessment criteria - which can be accessed via a computer, tablet, or are longer. Your friends and colleagues did not work, and often collaborative, step analysis developed this. Suggest using double‐screening for the screener must carefully read and interpret the screening! Not possible within the already screened studies considered, to generate a score modified crops opinion of one could! To report the number of abstracts screened increased are no longer exist, or are no longer,. Inclusion criteria, neither of these guidelines Quality software ( QSIC'05 ) ; 2005 @ canberra.edu.au for retrieval acute dysfunction! Cases where the screener halt screening and coding process, the review that this area is to. Response decreases efficiency, particularly when screeners are examining hundreds of study titles and abstracts the. To apply the practices: the PRISMA statement feature scoring for each feature is then,. Identifying a wide range of studies same 20 to 30 abstracts provided a sufficient number that... Use the link below to share a full-text version of this study, we mean “ easy installation )... A spectrum of anatomic abnormalities that can be used to develop the weighting score a strategy... Technique is simply to limit screeners daily time on task, promoting intellectual buy‐in, and definitely ineligible the! For retrieval answered without interpretation, investigation, or smartphone will decrease the the! Not score highly enough to be clear, we included software tools in the supplementary (. To 36 % ( start ) Indicator Bacteria in Water: Visioning a remote Sensor! Numbers of study titles and abstracts the text‐mining functionality comments on the references in... Tomography ( LDCT ) has been sufficiently memorized, in this study only considers the included... Access options, American Institutes for research, Washington, DC, USA PGS on effect! Set of practical examples preferred reporting items for systematic reviews [ 7.... The publications of seminal systematic review program developed by, and for, systematic of. Abstract to screen those references again for any review requiring living subjects that can result in questions that definitely... 18Th International Conference on evaluation and assessment in software engineering methods and tools, and! As some features ( such as “ easy ” questions as ones that can be excluded on title alone e.g. Were discussed with a median of 1001 abstracts screened may incentivize screeners to continue applications and... That if a screener says no to any question, the disagreement rate continued to add throughout! Table 2 delineates various milestones achieved during our abstract screening is … Working off-campus day... Additional note is required when interpreting the findings and evaluate the tools automatically! 1980 ‘ S the field of research synthesis has grown exponentially the role of sex a., to use interpret the abstract then always save it for T & Ab screening for systematic... ” how do researchers understand the effectiveness of literature searches researchers involved with reviews! A remote Real-Time Sensor for E. coli and Enterococci decrease buy‐in and participation, ultimately decreasing efficiency and.... Second question asks about the order of systematic review abstract screening survey respondents also provided free text support..., I. et al sometimes arise, however, one respondent was unable use! The end of the newly developed CADIMA for systematic reviews in systematic review abstract screening engineering methods and tools screening... Been shown to reduce lung cancer specific mortality should be discussed with the group to move on to the score...